Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Fire Service (Long-Service Medals)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue long-service medals, free of charge, to members of the fire services.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): A recommendation of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council that a long-service medal should be instituted for members of the fire services is under consideration and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.

Mrs. White: While that reply is gratifying, could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman say now that he is prepared favourably to consider this recommendation, and that such provision will be made, because it has been long expected?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry to have to ask the hon. Lady to be patient for a little while longer, but I hope it will only be a little while.

Rural Schools (Traffic Wardens)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ensure that school traffic wardens are appointed to all rural schools situated on Class A roads.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Under Section 1 of the School Crossing Patrols Act, 1953, it is for the county council, in rural areas, to decide what arrangements should be made for patrolling school crossings. I have no authority to issue any instructions on the subject.

Non-Industrial Employment (Gowers Report)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Report on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Manual Employment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on 16th February to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and on 12th November to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, but does the Home Secretary not think it is now time that a definite announcement was made of the intention of the Government to bring these recommendations into effect?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have seen a great number of people since our suggestions were sent out for discussion. The last deputation was not long ago, and I must ask for further time for consideration before the announcement is made.

Mr. Lindgren: Is not the Home Secretary aware that many professional and clerical workers are working under conditions which even his own Department would not tolerate under the Factories Acts? Is it not time that something was done about it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I have had not only a lot of memoranda but also personal accounts of the conditions and I am fully seized of the problem.

Colonial Subjects (Immigration Restrictions)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the increasing number of immigrants into this country, especially the group of 720 Jamaicans who are on their way; and, in view of the country's present difficulties, if he will consider putting some restrictions on the entry of such large numbers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am aware that a considerable number of British subjects from the Colonies have been immigrating into this country recently. There is no power to prevent any British subject taking up residence here.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the export of large unemployment to Britain, and do these immigrants get the benefits of the services of the Welfare State at the expense of the British taxpayer?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the people in this country, with the exception of a very small minority, would deprecate strongly any iniquitous discrimination of the kind that the hon. Gentleman opposite wants?

Captain Pilkington: Is it possible for the Home Secretary to say whether the number of immigrants is increasing, as the Question suggests?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is difficult to get exact figures because there is no discrimination against any British subjects. There is no power to question British subjects entering the United Kingdom as to what they intend to do and how long they intend to remain. However, I have had information from the West Indies which suggests that about 2,000 people left there in the first four months of this year for the purpose of seeking employment in the United Kingdom. I think it would be safe to conclude from this that the number is increasing.

Capital Punishment (Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now state what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can make any further statement on the Gowers Committee on Capital Punishment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The recommendations of the Royal Commission are receiving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Willey: I fully recognise the difficulties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in coming to a decision on this Report, but will he nevertheless expedite his consideration of this matter, about which there is a good deal of public concern?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly do my best to meet the wish behind that question.

Civil Defence (Householders' Removal Expenses)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what local authorities he consulted before he issued Civil Defence Circular No. 7/1954 bringing to an end the scheme under which local authorities were authorised to contribute towards the removal expenses incurred by householders in moving their own furniture from bomb-damaged premises to temporary accommodation and back again to the original area.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It was not necessary to consult the local authorities about this decision, but factual information was obtained from the following councils: Liverpool, Bootle, Birmingham, West Bromwich, Battersea, Camberwell, Greenwich, Paddington and West Ham.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the Home Secretary aware that this circular may cause considerable hardship to hundreds of blitzed householders in West Ham who are not yet in permanent accommodation? Can he not provide for some machinery to assist them? They are perhaps exceptional cases, but there are hundreds, and I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring his generosity to bear on this situation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, the last bomb in West Ham fell during the night of 17th to 18th March, 1945, so his constituents have had nine years in which to get their position right under the scheme. If, however, he would like to give me further information about what is suggested in his supplementary question, I shall be glad to consider whether there is anything I can do.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating particularly the latter part of that reply, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is


aware that because of its peculiar position, both financially and from the effects of the blitz, West Ham is the only local authority in the country which is receiving a special Exchequer grant from the Treasury, which shows that it should receive special treatment? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see whether he can give West Ham special treatment in this matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Hooliganism (Youth Gangs)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, following disturbances at St. Mary Cray, Kent, on 24th April, how many youths dressed in Edwardian suits were taken to the local police station for questioning; and in how many cases charges have been made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The answer to the first part of the Question is 37, and to the second, eight.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there is a great deal of concern over a large area of north-west Kent that this hooliganism can be repeated in the quieter parts of the Kent countryside? Would he say whether he considers this hooliganism a dangerous tendency or something about which we must not be too concerned? If he thinks it is dangerous would he encourage the public in the quieter parts, for example, in country railway stations, to contact the police when these youths appear and ask them to keep an eye on them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There are two main Questions on the Order Paper to which we shall come in a moment and I would rather not comment upon a case which is sub judice.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that these summonses were not taken out just because these youths were wearing Edwardian suits?

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to stamp out the hooliganism practised by young persons who have in various parts of the country banded themselves into gangs

known as Edwardian gangs and who by the reason of their brutality are becoming a menace to law-abiding citizens.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints he has received about the conduct of juvenile gangs in Edwardian garb in various parts of South London; and what action he is taking.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have received few representations on this subject, but I am aware that in certain parts of London youths affecting the dress mentioned associate together, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis assures me that the police are on the alert to suppress any tendency to hooliganism on the part of these youths.
In the six months ended 31st March last, 24 persons under 21 years of age, and operating in groups of three or more, were arrested in the Metropolitan Police district for indictable offences involving violence against the person, and 456 youths were arrested for other offences involving rowdyism.
I have received reports on isolated incidents in other parts of the country, but on present information I have no reason to suppose that the problem is widespread or that the police are not taking appropriate action.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many magistrates who serve in juvenile courts are very deeply concerned at their lack of power to deal with these youths of 16 and 17? Will he consider introducing amending legislation to give additional powers to the magistrates and also consider amending the legislation relating to cases involving assault and battery, so that magistrates can impose suitable corporal punishment?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On my hon. Friend's first point, I am very surprised at the suggestion in his question, because the powers that are open to magistrates are of almost infinite variety since the passing of the 1948 Act. On the second point, I have nothing to add to the speech that I made in the House.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that these louts who, long ago, should have been smacked on the behind


by their parents, are, for the most part, weak characters who are easily led to a course of violence? Would he encourage social workers to establish contact with these empty-headed youths before the problem gets out of hand?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly; I shall do anything that I can to encourage all people of good will who are ready to help in dealing with those who are addicted to crime.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, bearing in mind the population of the Metropolitan area, the figures that he has given are not as bad as the Press might have led us to believe? Is he aware that an experiment has been made by the Rev. Douglas Griffiths, of Friendship House, which looks like having very successful results? Will he watch that experiment?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the hon. Member can see, I have in front of me Press cuttings dealing with that experiment. I shall certainly watch it.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. Is it not out of order to frame a Question with a descriptive adjective which casts a reflection or an implication on someone alive or dead? Instead of using the word "Edwardian," would not the proper description be "young thugs," leaving it at that?

Mr. Speaker: I see nothing unparliamentary in the use of the adjective "Edwardian."

Child Adoption (Report)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Report of the Committee on Child Adoption; and what recommendations have been made on the adoption of British children by non-British subjects resident abroad.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not yet received the Report.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do what he can to expedite the publication of this Report which, according to Press reports, has been compiled already? Would he bear in mind, for example, the case of the child who was taken to Hollywood by an American film star, which led to

proceedings in a magistrate's court? Will he tighten up the child adoption law?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Report is expected any day.

Mr. Grimond: Are considerable numbers of children being taken abroad now by non-residents as they were some years ago?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to-have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Metropolitan Officers (False Evidence)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police Force have, in each of the last five years, been convicted under the police discipline code for giving false evidence; and what penalties were imposed in each case.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There were no such cases in the years 1949–52. In 1953, one officer was found guilty on a charge of falsehood under the police discipline code and was fined; and two officers who were sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for perjury were dismissed.

Mr. Stewart: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it desirable that officers found guilty of this very serious offence should continue in the force?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the hon. Member will not press that point, because I am the appeals authority under the Police Appeals Act. These things may come to me, and as an appellant authority I cannot lay down a principle which might preclude consideration of special facts.

Plain Clothes Traffic Patrols

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with a view to reducing the number of road accidents caused by reckless driving, he will consider the use of mobile police in plain clothes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have consulted representative chief officers of police who assure me that they use, and will continue to use, plain clothes traffic patrols wherever they consider it necessary.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the experiment in Oxfordshire is continuing and, if so, how far it has had success in reducing important breaches of the motoring laws?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to obtain up-to-date information. I had a look at this matter, but that was two or three months ago. I will obtain the information and let the right hon. Gentleman know.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Mental Patients (Remission of Sentence)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds a prisoner is not granted remission of sentence in respect of periods spent in hospital as a certified mental patient before his sentence expires.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: A prisoner returning to prison from a mental hospital to which he was sent on being certified insane is normally granted remission in respect of the period spent in the hospital unless his conduct has been such as to suggest the propriety of another course, for example, if it appears that his insanity was feigned.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Home Secretary recall the case at Wandsworth, which I brought to his notice a week or two ago, in which a man was certified as a mental patient while he was serving his sentence and was sent to Caine Hill and denied remission of sentence in respect of that period? Is it not unfair that a prisoner who becomes a mental case should be denied the privilege or entitlement that is normally given to a man who falls sick during the period of his sentence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have stated the general practice. I will examine the case to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred and will write to him about it.

Executed Prisoners' Graves (Relatives' Visits)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why relatives are not permitted to visit the graves

of prisoners who have been executed and buried in prison.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think it would be inappropriate to give facilities for this purpose.

Mr. Yates: I asked the Minister if he would say why this should not be done. Does he not realise the tremendous anxiety a mother feels if she cannot visit the grave of her son? Why perpetuate this most un-Christian attitude?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I appreciate what is in the mind of the hon. Member, but it is rare for any such request to be received and, secondly, anything which might produce undesirable demonstrations, or might pander to a morbid type of publicity, is to be deprecated.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister explain why, in the case of the Spandau prisoners, who were convicted for mass murders, Her Majesty's Government requested the Russian Government, who have acquiesced—an announcement was made only last week—that the relatives of these, prisoners should be allowed facilities which are denied to the relatives of individual murderers in this country? Surely there should be equity of treatment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I tried to explain that this Question deals with graves of prisoners who have been executed. The prisoners at Spandau have not been sentenced to execution, but have been sentenced to imprisonment and might die in prison. The question of discussions between Her Majesty's Government and another Government and the state of those discussions is, I suggest, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether it would be advisable to send the bodies of all prisoners who have been executed to a crematorium?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a matter which I should like to consider before giving an answer.

Cells, Parkhurst (Heating)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Henry Rosefield, a prisoner at Parkhurst, was, previous to his death.


removed from a hospital bed to a cold punishment cell; and by what method punishment cells are heated at this gaol.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: At the time when the prisoner Henry Rosefield was reported for an offence and punished he was not a hospital patient. Certain allegations about the circumstances in which he underwent the punishment award were made at the inquest, where the prison medical officer gave evidence that he certified Rosefield fit for the punishment cells, that these were not colder than the rest of the prison, and that Rosefield's confinement there was not a contributory cause of death. The punishment cells are heated by hot air ducts from the prison central heating system.

Mr. Yates: Will the Minister inquire into this, because I understand that the ordinary cells are centrally heated but that the punishment cells have no heating whatsoever inside? The air has to be brought in from outside and cannot penetrate the thick walls. Would he consider whether punishment cells are suitable for persons who are really ill?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The suggestion in that question is contrary to my information, so I should be very glad to look into it and check what I have said. I would remind the hon. Member that in this case, when the man in question was reported and punished, he was not a hospital patient. I will look into the point and if the hon. Member has any particular facts to put forward I shall be glad if he will have a word with me, or write to me about them.

Prisoners, Parkhurst (Corporal Punishment)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the offence committed by F. Simm and Michael Hogan at Parkhurst; and whether, in such cases, prisoners are allowed under his regulations the right of appeal against a decision to impose a sentence of flogging.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The offence was incitement to mutiny. There is no provision for appeal against an award of corporal punishment, but Section 18 of the Prison Act, 1952, provides that such an award shall not be carried into effect

until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Yates: Is it not a fact that flogging is not administered except in the case of violence to officers? If it is a question of incitement to violence, does it not mean that the conditions in Parkhurst are so serious that they ought to be investigated? A Select Committee did look into the point and were very concerned about some of the conditions inside giving rise to dissatisfaction. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked into that; if not, will he look into it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Every case of corporal punishment is personally considered by the Home Secretary and this case was personally considered by me. The position was that about 600 prisoners were present. The incident was directed against the Governor personally and was intended as a demonstration against the three-shift time-table, which enables longer hours to be worked—a most desirable thing in every prison—which had been introduced that day.
I would point out to the hon. Member that the board of visitors discriminated between the two prisoners, 12 strokes being awarded to Simm and six to Hogan. Simm twice before during previous sentences had been convicted of incitement to mutiny, but corporal punishment was not administered. I went into the facts very carefully and I thought it a proper case. I think that in a situation like that, when the Governor is confronted with such a position, one has to apply the law.

NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP)

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour the correct procedure to be followed by young men due for National Service who are ill and under the care of a general practitioner on the date of their call-up.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): If a man is sick, or has met with an accident so that he will be unable to travel on the day on which he is due to report for service, a medical certificate should be sent by post immediately to the officer commanding the unit described on the enlistment notice. The procedure is set


out on the reverse of the enlistment notice, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when that procedure was followed by a constituent of mine, details of whom have been supplied to the Secretary of State for War, the only result was that the certificate was ignored and the police took the young man into custody?

Sir W. Monckton: I am responsible only up to the issue of the enlistment notice. All I know of the case to which the hon. Lady referred is that, instead of the certificate being sent to the officer commanding the unit, I understand that it was taken to the police station, with distressing results.

Mrs. Jeger: That was the second medical certificate, the first having been ignored. Is the Minister aware that I put this Question down for answer by the Secretary of State for War, who disowned it and passed it on to the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Sir W. Monckton: I have done my best.

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of National Service men who were medically rejected after being called up; and the number of those medically rejected when called up after being deferred, for 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and the first half of 1953. respectively.

Sir W. Monckton: The number of men medically rejected in 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 was as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 1st December, 1953. The number of medical rejections for the first half of 1953 was 18,743.
In answer to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar Question on 23rd March, 1954.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the figure given to me, which, if I remember rightly, was 75,000, was a conjecture by his Parliamentary Secretary, not a firm figure. It is because of that, and the remark which the hon. Member made that I could not count and that I should go to his Ministry for the figures,

although he had to admit on that occasion that his figure was wrong, that I ask whether it is possible to get the numbers of those rejected after deferment, which will indicate whether what I asserted— that 100,000 escaped—was correct or otherwise.

Sir W. Monckton: There are two difficulties about giving an answer to that in figures. The number of people rejected when called up after deferment is one thing, and the number of people deferred who come into service three or five years later needs to be taken into account before one can say what number purport to escape. I should like, if the hon. Member will co-operate, to see him myself with my officers and show him the figures, so that he can see whether he is satisfied or whether he would prefer to put down another Question.

Mr. Keenan: I will do that, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Pallion Trading Estate, Sunderland

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour how many people were employed in the factories on the Pallion Trading Estate, Sunderland, on 31st March, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954.

Sir W. Monckton: The numbers of persons employed in the factories on the Pallion Trading Estate at the end of March were as follow: 1951–3,340; 1952–2,959; 1953–3,392; 1954–3,617.

Mr. Williams: Do these figures not show that during the period of office of this Government there has been considerable extension in the work done and employment available on the trading estates?

Mr. Willey: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman compared these figures with those for previous years? Would he not agree that the figures are very disturbing? We are very concerned that two factories are vacant. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do all he can to assist the President of the Board of Trade to improve the position in Sunderland?

Sir W. Monckton: I shall certainly do my best to assist the President of the Board of Trade. I will look back to the figures for earlier years, but I find some comfort in the rising number of persons employed on the trading estates in the last few years.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in spite of the fact that two factories were closed, there has been increasing employment in the last few months?

Foundries, Ayr

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to overcome the redundancy and short working time now being experienced in the foundries of Ayr.

Sir W. Monckton: A fall in demand for marine castings has resulted in some redundancies and short-time working in two foundries in Ayr. Since last October, 26 men have become redundant but only two of them are now registered as unemployed. Twenty-four men are at present on short-time. Some fluctuations in demand affecting employment in the foundries are unavoidable, but I shall continue to watch the position.

Sir T. Moore: While fully agreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend on the steps he is taking, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that this redundancy, or even the start of it, causes great anxiety to very highly-skilled workers? Will he constantly do what he can to overcome it?

Sir W. Monckton: indicated assent.

Mr. Pannell: In supporting the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), may I ask whether the Minister will bear in mind that his hon. Friend's fears are occasioned by the time between the wars, when there were only two foundries working in the whole of Scotland?

Trade Unions, Government Departments (Closed Shop)

Lieut-Colonel Hyde: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to prevent the operation of the closed shop, the so-called 100 per cent, shop, or any other form of compulsory member ship of specified trades unions in Government Departments where the purpose can

be shown to be the destruction of an existing union and the compulsory recruitment of its members into other unions, as contrary to Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was ratified on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 22nd February, 1951.

Sir W. Monckton: No such action is necessary. Moreover, the Article in question deals with freedom of association for a lawful object, including the right to form and join trade unions. This freedom is fully protected by existing law.

Lieut-Colonel Hyde: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend be disposed to take steps to invoke the operation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights at least on behalf of the employees of B.O.A.C., who are suffering economic sanctions by agreement within the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport in order to force them to give up their membership of the Aeronautical Engineers Association?

Sir W. Monckton: The Question on the Order Paper related to people employed in Government Departments, and I understand that the supplementary question related to an airways corporation. It is suggested that I should take action because what was happening 'was contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. I am advised that there is no contravention of that Article.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the Minister aware that the same Convention demands freedom for people to join trade unions if they wish and not be discriminated against if they do so, and that that freedom is violated in many engineering establishments in respect of supervisory workers? Will the Minister do something about that?

Sir W. Monckton: I am well aware of the provisions of that Article; indeed, I drew attention to them in my original reply. If there is any contravention of them to which the hon. Member will draw my attention, I will look into it.

Double-Shift Working

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour the sequel to the circulation last summer, on the suggestion of the National Joint Advisory Council, of the


memorandum on double-shift working; and if he will give a list of the industries to which the memorandum was sent.

Sir W. Monckton: My letter about double-shift working invited 110 organisations of employers and workers in selected industries to consider whether there might be scope for an extension of the system at establishments where conditions were appropriate. While the letter did not ask for a specific answer a number of organisations have replied expressing acceptance of the principle of double-shift working though its use or extension must be dependent on local agreement and local industrial conditions.
I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend a list of the organisations to which my letter was addressed.

Sir G. Lloyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate taking any further action at all in connection with this matter?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, I am constantly urging the use of double-shift working in appropriate cases, but it is a matter on which one has to go slow. In many cases and many places there are disadvantages which have to be taken into account.

Directorate of Lands and Accommodation (Discharged Staff)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in finding alternative employment for the temporary assistant estate surveyors recently discharged from the Directorate of Lands and Accommodation.

Sir W. Monckton: Thirty-eight redundant assistant estate surveyors registered for employment at offices of the Ministry of whom eight were subsequently re-engaged by the Ministry of Works. One has been placed with another Government Department, and with the help of the Technical and Scientific Register, three have found work in private practice. The Ministry will continue to give them all possible help in finding fresh work for those still seeking employment.

Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister aware that this matter ought not to lie where it is, and that the treatment has been rather dilatory, rather unimaginative and reflects no credit on the Government Departments concerned? Will he give it his personal attention and tidy it up?

Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. Member that I have looked into this question. It is very difficult to find work suitable for these men other than those we have placed. The work which they have been doing in Government service has no exact counterpart in non-Government employment. Many of them are elderly, and unhappily, that makes some difference—I wish it did not. I have submitted their names to all the Government Departments who may have vacancies, to local authorities, new town corporations and private employers. I shall go on doing my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Day Nurseries, West Riding (Closing)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take on the decision of the West Riding County Council to close almost all of the children's nurseries in their area.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take following the decision of the West Riding County Council to close three out of five day nurseries in the Shipley area.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The county council has made new proposals to my right hon. Friend regarding day nurseries, but he cannot fully consider them until the time allowed by the National Health Service Acts for comments to be made by local authorities and other interested bodies has expired.

Mr. Hirst: When considering the case, when the time comes to do so, will my hon. Friend bear in mind especially the need of the constituency of Shipley? It relies enormously for its productivity in the dollar drive on the number of people who can obtain employment locally, and that important purpose does entail the use of nurseries?

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the West Riding County Council made its decision without taking into consideration industrial needs and the financial needs of some mothers?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that all these facts will be taken into consideration.

Maternity Home Fire, Reading

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet investigated the cause of the fire at the Dellwood Maternity Home, Reading, on 18th April; and whether he is satisfied that all possible steps were taken to save the lives of the 13 babies who died as a result of the fire.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) on 29th April. I understand, however, that the regional board's committee of inquiry met yesterday for the first time.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister say that the inquiry will not be limited merely to the cause of the fire, but will also extend to subsequent events, and, in particular, will deal with the question of whether all proper steps were taken to save the lives of the babies who, unfortunately, died?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the inquiry will cover that, but I will make certain that it does.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that among the matters inquired into is the length of time which elapsed before the discovery of the fire and the last time any member of the staff had gone in to look at the babies, and whether that lapse of time was inordinately long?

Mr. Macleod: I am certain that that is one of the matters which will be inquired into. I am equally certain that we should not jump to conclusions either way until we have the evidence.

Diesel-Engined Buses, London (Air Pollution)

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the health and atmospheric pollution aspects of the proposal to replace trolley omnibuses in London by omnibuses burning diesel oil; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Atmospheric pollution in all its aspects is under consideration by the Air Pollution Committee set up by my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Fuel and Power and the

Secretary of State for Scotland, on which my right hon. Friend is represented. Any statement must await the committee's report.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friend to make sure that the findings of this committee are not unduly delayed, and that a report is forthcoming before the change-over to new transport is made?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I understand that this replacement is not scheduled to take place until 1957. This is a very complicated and difficult subject and, obviously, an inquiry must take some time.

Disabled Ex-Service Man, Birmingham (Motor Tricycle)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health why he refused to grant a motor tricycle to Mr. John Lennon, a disabled ex-Service man, of 29, Watson Road, Birmingham, 8, despite the fact that this has made impossible Mr. Lennon's acceptance of an offer of training from the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the hon. Member has already been informed, the refusal was based on the conclusion reached by my medical advisers after several reviews of the case, that this patient's condition does not prevent him from using the available public transport to attend for training. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour would be prepared to accept him for training relying on public transport, or, alternatively, at a residential centre.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Ministry of Labour informed me quite specifically that their offer was dependent upon this tricycle being provided, but that as a result of it not being provided that offer has now fallen through, and that Mr. Lennon is fully supported in this by the views of his own doctor?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the outline of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman has had, but that was, I think, in January, 1954, and the latter part of my answer carries the story forward from then. There have been two further medical reviews. On this sort of matter one must take the medical opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Out-Patients' Departments (Waiting Time)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now given consideration to the question of reducing waiting-time in hospital out-patients' departments; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As I have previously said, I regard this as a matter which is primarily one for local action by the hospital authorities themselves. I am, however, proposing to ask them to review their present arrangements.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister realise how widespread are the complaints on this matter? Has his attention been drawn to the "Daily Express" today, which contains a very distressing account of a four-hour wait in a hospital after an appointment had been made? Has his attention been drawn to the "Manchester Evening Chronicle," which conducted investigations among all the hospitals in Manchester, with very revealing results?

Mr. Macleod: There is an enormous variation between the very good, indifferent and very bad. I am following the articles in the "Daily Express," which are continuing. I am not, however, convinced that we can do very much by circular. I think we can do a great deal more by the pressure of public opinion in our different areas.

Mr. P. Roberts: Is it not a fact that the main trouble is the lack of accommodation in many cases, particularly in Sheffield, and could my right hon. Friend not bear this in mind when demands for extra capital grants are made, particularly from the regional areas?

Mr. Macleod: It is often lack of accommodation, but I would say that the main reason is lack of imagination. I hold the view that we can do a great deal more with a few pots of paint than with all the circulars I can issue.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does the Minister recall the very valuable report of the Central Health Services Council on the care and attention of in-patients? Will the Minister consider asking that body

if it will make a survey of the out-patient problem in the same way?

Mr. Macleod: I should like to consider that.

Patients, Birmingham (Thoracic Surgery)

Dr. Stress: asked the Minister of Health how many patients of the Birmingham egional Hospital Board are awaiting admission for major thoracic surgery due to tuberculosis of the lungs; and the average length of time such patients have to wait before being admitted.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On 30th April last the number was 461. The waiting time varies between seven weeks and one year according to circumstances.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that these figures are rather worse than those for the Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds boards? Can he say how he plans to improve the situation?

Mr. Macleod: There is a very big variation between the 14 different regions in this speciality, which is one of increasing importance. So far as the Birmingham region is concerned, the regional board plan to build a new unit this year in the King Edward VII Sanatorium at Hertford.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about six months ago he gave an answer on this subject in very similar terms to an hon. Member from the North-East region? Can he say what he is doing to relieve this very serious situation?

Mr. Macleod: I have answered this particular question with regard to the Birmingham region. If the right hon. Lady would like particulars about another region I am sure she will be prepared to put a Question upon the Order Paper.

Major Operations (Waiting Time)

Dr. Stress: asked the Minister of Health whether he has noted the variation in the average waiting time, after inclusion in the waiting list, for patients who require major surgery for tuberculosis, cancer of lung and bronchus or bronchiectasis; and what steps he proposes to take to shorten the waiting time, particularly in Wales.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The length of waiting time is due primarily to the rapid increase in demand for thoracic surgery and the comparative shortage of thoracic surgeons and trained theatre staff. The number of surgeons has increased by 50 per cent, over the last three years and is likely to increase further; and the annual number of patients dealt with by thoracic surgery departments rose by over 18 per cent, in 1953 and has nearly doubled since 1949.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that in Wales, for example, the waiting period for tuberculosis before treatment is offered is not one year but up to two years, and for bronchiectasis up to five years, which is rather a long time? Will he increase the number of appointments of consultants for this speciality so that geographical considerations do not determine whether people live or die?

Mr. Macleod: We are doing all we we can to iron out the serious discrepancies between the regions. One of the methods is by consultation between the senior assistant medical officers to see whether a region, where the situation is comparatively good, can help another, where it may be nothing like so good. The hon. Member will know from his own experience that this problem has become much more urgent, because the enormous advances in surgery in the last few years has meant that so many cases are amenable to operation.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister consider concentrating cases in need of chest surgery in a relatively large hospital so that so much time shall not be wasted by surgeons travelling from hospital to hospital, and better work may be done because of the treatment that trained staff can give? I believe that a lot could be done in that way.

Mr. Macleod: I should like to consider the implications of that suggestion. It is a far-reaching proposal.

Mr. Shurmer: In view of the success gained from the sending of a number of patients to Switzerland and the length of the waiting time in this country for treatment, will the Minister consider extending the Swiss scheme? There is accommodation there for patients.

Mr. Macleod: That is another question.

South-West Metropolitan Board (Appointment)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Health why he has not reappointed Dr. Stark Murray to the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In making this and other changes, I have followed the example of my predecessors in introducing new members at regular intervals to the boards, so as to widen the opportunity for service on them.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this doctor has been one of the most capable and conscientious members of a very good hospital board? Does he not agree that it would be a bad thing if he determined the appointment of excellent men merely because they have been six years on the board? Above all, can he assure the House that political considerations did not enter into this since Dr. Stark Murray is a leading Socialist doctor and his successor is a leading anti-Socialist doctor?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that anyone knows more from his own knowledge about the appointments I make to these boards than the hon. Member. If he looks at not one instance, but at all the instances, and at other boards, he will know that there is no foundation for his suggestion.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many Members of Parliament were originally appointed to the hospital boards and to what political parties they belonged? Will he promise the House that when Members, or their wives, fail to attend board meetings he will not reappoint them?

Mr. Macleod: In the original appointments made to regional hospital boards, six Members of Parliament were appointed. Subsequently, the number was increased to nine, and. by a strange coincidence, all nine were Socialists.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, before he made his decision, he was informed that this very able doctor was a founder member of the Socialist Medical Association?

Mr. Macleod: I appoint people for medical and not political reasons.

Mr. Smithers: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House by whom Dr. Stark Murray was replaced, and what are his qualifications?

Mr. Macleod: He was replaced by Mr. Lawrence Abel, one of the most distinguished surgeons in the country.

Farms and Market Gardens (Cost)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health the estimated cost of hospitals running market gardens.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that this information is not separately available. Trading accounts are, however, being introduced in a standard form from 1st April, 1954, for both hospital farms and market gardens.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that it is generally considered that there is a heavy loss made on this? Will he change his policy, as there are plenty of market gardeners who are prepared to produce fresh well-grown food and vegetables at a reasonable price, instead of hospitals wasting the taxpayers' money by making these losses?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. Apart from circulating them on the proper keeping of trading accounts, I have recently asked all hospitals to refrain from farming activities so that they do not indulge in activities which can best be done by ordinary farmers

Boilers, Leicester Royal Infirmary

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Health if the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board has yet approved a scheme for the modification of the boilers of the Leicester Royal Infirmary; and on what date it is expected that the work will be commenced.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am informed that the board are obtaining tenders for part of the scheme immediately and expect to be able to invite tenders for the remainder within a few weeks. It is not possible to state on what date the work will be commenced, but the board hope that the main portion of the scheme will be completed before next winter.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all over the country out-of-date hospital boilers are wasting coal and putting up maintenance costs

quite unnecessarily? Will he bear that in mind in future, and the high cost of replacement, when making capital allocations to the regional boards?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I said that in reply to a Parliamentary Question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) a week or two ago.

Unoccupied Pay-Beds

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of Section 5 pay-beds were unoccupied in the hospitals under his direction during each of the last three years.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that no figures are available before July, 1952. For the periods July to December, 1952, January to June, 1953, and July to December, 1953, the figures for non-mental hospitals are 34–5, 30–4 and 34–5 respectively.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that these figures show a terrible waste of beds? Large numbers of waiting non-paying patients could quite well use these beds if the Minister would give instructions that they should be used, and such instructions were carried out.

Mr. Macleod: I did that in August last year, and the results of it are not apparent in these figures. I hope that they will very substantially reduce the percentage of non-occupied beds.

Mr. Marquand: Can the Minister say whether this whole question comes within the terms of reference of the Guillebaud Committee?

Mr. Macleod: Without having the terms of reference in mind, I see no reason why the Guillebaud Committee should not make recommendations on that.

Injured Persons (Compensation)

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the hardship caused by the refusal of hospital committees to accept a compromise payment where the injured person is unable to secure compensation otherwise than a payment as an act of grace; and what action he will take;
(2) whether he is aware that the Woolwich Group Hospital Management Committee have declined to make any exception to the legal position which applies when an insurance company makes a payment to the victim of a road accident who has received treatment in a National Health Service hospital, in particular in the case of Mr. Harry Kendall, R.T.A. No. 1610; and if he will direct the Woolwich Management Committee to agree to a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This is essentially a matter for the discretion of hospital authorities; but I have asked the Woolwich Group Hospital Management Committee to look into the possibility of waiving the charges under the Road Traffic Acts in this case, and I propose to inform hospital authorities generally that I should see no objection to their doing so in such cases if there are reasonable grounds.

Mr. Steward: Thank you very much.

Gynaecological Treatment (Waiting Lists)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health how many women are on the waiting lists for gynæcological treatment for repair of prolapse; the average period of waiting; and what is being done to provide more speedy treatment for such cases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The information asked for in the first two parts of the Question is not available, but the number of beds allocated to this work and the number of patients treated by the hospital service since 1949 have steadily increased.

Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that bodies like the

Hospital
Bed Complement
Staffed Beds
Nursing and Midwifery Staff


Whole-time
Part-time


St. Mary's, Paddington
…
…
485
447
448
4


University College Hospital
…
…
721
705
801
4


St. Charles' Hospital
…
…
529
449
192
19


Paddington Hospital
…
…
564
509
254
38


Queen Charlotte's Hospital
…
…
161
161
160
8

National Birthday Trust Fund, which have studied this subject, are alarmed at the fact that the number of cases also seems to be on the increase, and at the apparent lack of facilities when dealing with this rather serious question?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that there is a slight increase in the waiting list, but the waiting time, which is a great deal more important, has, in fact, been steadily reduced recently because of the greatly increased turnover in these cases. However, I quite agree that it is a most important and serious matter, and I am watching it.

Beds and Nurses, London

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Health the number of beds and the number of nursing staff in St. Mary's, University College, St. Charles, Paddington, and Queen Charlotte's Hospitals, respectively.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Since the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Parkin: Having studied these figures, will the Minister note the grave disadvantages which hospitals that are not teaching hospitals suffer in regard to staffing, and will he do something to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Macleod: There is certainly a difference in the staff ratio between ordinary and teaching hospitals—there always has been—but they perform very different functions.

Following are the figures:

The position at 31st December, 1953, was as follows. Later figures are not available.

Stores, Paddington (Checking System)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Health what recommendations he makes to hospital boards with regard to the system of checking stores to be used in hospitals; and what improvements have been made in recent years in the methods employed at Paddington Hospital.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Instructions about the preparation and checking of inventories have been issued from time to time, and a further circular about the ascertainment and prevention of stores losses generally will shortly be issued. I will let the hon. Member have a copy of this as soon as possible. I understand that no material alterations have been made in recent years in the system employed at Paddington Hospital and that the usual safeguards for preventing losses are in force.

Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister aware that in a recent court case an attack was made by the magistrate and a detective on the methods employed at Paddington Hospital, the implication being that public funds were being thrown away since the nationalisation of the hospital? Can the right hon. Gentleman see that equal publicity is given to his answer?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that equal publicity will be given to this. I have noted the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Elderly Mental Patients

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what proportion of patients in mental hospitals are 65 years of age and over; and what variations there have been in this proportion over the last few years.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Figures for 1953 are not yet available, but at the end of 1952 the proportion was 28.8 per cent. compared with 28·1 in 1951, 27·4 in 1950, and 26·6 in 1949.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, in view of the very high proportion of elderly persons in our mental hospitals, that it is very important that we should try to do more to establish possibly residential homes for the care of those who are perhaps confused cases rather than mental cases proper?

Mr. Macleod: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is a good deal wider than his Question.

Mrs. Braddock: As there is grave concern about the number of old people who are being certified because there is no opportunity of their obtaining accommodation in an ordinary hospital, will the Minister give instructions that no persons are to be certified in order to get them into hospital unless there is something definitely mentally wrong with them?

Mr. Macleod: I would rather study that first. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put a Question upon the Order Paper.

INDO-CHINA (U.K.-U.S. POLICY)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the differences of opinion that have arisen between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on the subject of Indo-China both before and during the Geneva Conference.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I think I should prefer to leave that mischief-making process to the hon. Member.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are such grave rumours of differences current in Washington that Senator Knowland has said that Britain is no longer a dependable ally, and that "The Times," a very responsible organ, has suggested that the Government should make a statement of this kind to produce a more calming atmosphere? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that only yesterday his own Minister of State said that no discussions at all had taken place about a South-East Asian defence pact while, at the same time, President Eisenhower was saying that substantial progress has been made.

The Prime Minister: I hope that when a statement is made of our relations with the United States it will cover not only divergencies on points of policy, but also those great factors of unity without which our survival would be in danger, and theirs, possibly, in danger, too.

Mr. Attlee: Why should the right hon. Gentleman assume that a Question of


this kind is mischief-making when it is quite clear that there has been trouble in the United States as to exactly our attitude, and when a little clarification might make for better understanding and not mischief-making, which is far from the wish of those on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: I think it is quite possible that a general statement upon the relations might be advantageous, but not a statement on the differences of opinion at this juncture.

Mr. Attlee: But if there is a difference, it is just as well to clear it up. It is not emphasising a difference to try to get rid of it.

Hon. Members: Ask "Nye."

Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister going to say nothing about these very important differences in statements of fact which have taken place between this country and the United States, in view of the fact that the Minister of State has told the House quite categorically on no fewer than three occasions in the past 10 days that no discussions were taking place on the South-East Asian defence pact and that President Eisenhower has now publicly called him a liar? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman told us who is right? If President Eisenhower is right the Minister of State should apologise to this House.

The Prime Minister: That is just an example of the tendency I was deprecating. I must say that I think it utterly untrue to suggest that President Eisenhower called my right hon. and learned Friend a liar.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH MAY—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee. Debate on the National Health Services, England and Wales, and Scotland.
Motion to approve: Ships' Stores (Charges) (Amendment No. 2) Order.
TUESDAY, 11TH MAY—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a Time-table Motion for the Television Bill. The Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow (Friday).
WEDNESDAY, 12H MAY—Second Reading: Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill until 7 o'clock.
Committee stage: Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY, 13m MAY—A debate on Members' Expenses has been arranged as the result of the request made last week by the Leader of the Opposition. It will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment.
FRIDAY, 14TH MAY—Private Members' Motions.
I have also to inform the House that the Government will shortly be submitting a Bill to indemnify the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) from the consequences of his having accepted an appointment which, I am advised, constitutes an office of profit under the Crown.
The hon. Gentleman was invited to accept, and accepted, the appointment of Chairman of the London Agency of the Dried Fruits Control Board, which is constituted under an Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. Directly he became aware that such an appointment might be an office of profit, he asked to be suspended from that office and took counsel's opinion on his position. I am advised that, in view of the duties and functions of the Board, it is an office of profit, and, consequently, the Government now propose to introduce before the end of the week a short Bill to indemnify the hon. Gentleman from any penal consequences he may have inadvertently incurred and to remove any disqualification for membership of the House that may have come through his tenure of the office in question. In view of this advice, the hon. Member has also informed the Board that he is unable to act as a member of its London Agency.
The House will recall that in 1941 the Arthur Jenkins Indemnity Act was passed in somewhat similar circumstances.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement,


we all know how extremely tricky this matter is. I understand that it is being examined. It is quite possible inadvertently to accept an office of profit to one's own great loss. In view of the precedents, we shall certainly offer no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Attlee: On Thursday's business, may we take it that the object of the debate is that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be able to express their opinion freely, and that the Government will then consider the views expressed and come to a decision but that no Government decision will be announced during the debate? I understand that it is a preliminary debate in order to "collect the voices." Is that right?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not think that it necessarily follows. We shall have to see how the debate goes. It is, of course, exploratory, and, certainly, every hon. Member can say what he likes — within the rules of order.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, but I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to consider the views expressed by hon. Members and not come to the House with a decision which the Government are going to announce no matter what hon. Members say, it being, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, very much a House of Commons' responsibility.
With regard to the Time-table Motion for the Television Bill, surely this is a quite outrageous action. Look at the facts. The Government are having the very greatest difficulty in getting a majority of even three. Now the Government apparently want to adopt the drastic measure of dragging reluctant hon. Members along to vote for a Bill which they do not want. It is an outrage. There is no precedent for doing this on a Bill which is obviously becoming, as we saw yesterday in Division after Division, increasingly unpopular.

Mr. Crookshank: The considerations which the right hon. Gentleman so kindly puts before me would, I imagine, apply in either case, whether there was a Time-table Motion or not. However, we have spent two days on the Bill—15½ hours — and we are still nowhere near the end of Clause 1.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the circumstances which I will now put before him? First, this is a Bill which, by its nature, has no electoral mandate whatever. Having regard to the critical non-party opinion about it outside, this is the last sort of Bill that should be guillotined.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our conduct as an Opposition on the Bill has been so moderate that not once have the Government moved the Closure? They have not moved it, I imagine, because they knew that the Chair, in its impartiality, would not have accepted the Closure because our debates had not been long enough.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, having regard to the feeling in all parts of the House, including a fair amount of feeling on the benches opposite. the right thing to do about the Bill, upon which the Government nearly came to defeat last night, surely is to drop it? I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if he drops the Bill I will not push him around too hard.
I submit that there is no justification on the merits so far for employing the Guillotine and that the Bill, by its very nature, is the kind of Bill to which the Guillotine should not be applied merely in the interests of hon. Members who are associated with advertising agencies.

Mr. Crookshank: Attractive though the offer is of not being pushed about by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he has not anticipated the debate to the extent of precluding his making similar remarks on Tuesday. He had better leave it to my right hon. Friends and myself to test the feeling on our own side of the House.

Mr. H. Hynd: Reverting to the Macpherson Indemnity Bill, why is it that an hon. Member cannot accept a post such as that of Chairman of the London Agency of the Dried Fruits Control Board, while serving Members of Parliament can be appointed to paid public positions as that of a Recorder? It does not make sense.

Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid that I cannot offhand try to make sense of all the disqualifications which may apply to hon. Members, but in this case, I am advised that there has


been a transgression, and that is why I hope that the House will unanimously pass the Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Morrison: Presumably the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) will not be able to take part in the proceedings of the House until the Indemnity Bill is passed. Is that so?

Mr. Crookshank: I can assure the House that as soon as this situation emerged the hon. Member ceased attending the House.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the size of the Government's majority, would it not be well to postpone the Television Bill for a bit?

Mr. Crookshank: It might be a better reason for hurrying on the Indemnity Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman now able to say when the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill will be before the House and whether it will need a Time-table Motion?

Mr. Crookshank: I did not say any-thing about it for next week.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the importance of the rights of Private Members on Adjournment debates, can the right hon. Gentleman find time for discussion of the Motion on the subject standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) and other hon. Members?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I do not think that I could find Government time for that Motion.

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1954–55

CLASS III

VOTE 3. POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £23,673,310, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for expenses in connection with the police services in England and Wales, including the cost of inspection and training; grants in respect of expenditure incurred by police authorities; a contribution to the International Criminal Police Commission; and fees to deputy metropolitan magistrates.— [£10,695,000 has been voted on account.]—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

METROPOLITAN POLICE

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We propose this afternoon that we should have a short discussion on the Metropolitan Police, lasting, I understand, until about 7 o'clock, and in opening the discussion I should like to welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary back to the home ground after the many away matches which he has played in Departments other than the one for which he is primarily responsible. At any rate, there can be no doubt, as far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, that he is responsible, and, as the police authority for the Metropolis, he is responsible for every act of every police officer in that force.
That was laid down as long ago as 1829, and in fact it places the Minister in an almost unique position among the police authorities of the country, for certainly in the counties no question can be put to anybody about the actions of a member of a county police force by any public authority at all. These forces are under the control of the standing joint committees, which merely send to the


county councils the bill for their expenses, and their request or precept cannot be questioned by anybody. In the boroughs, where the watch committee is the police authority, the exact position of the borough council itself is very often a matter of some difficulty, when the mayor has to give a ruling as to what can or cannot be said.
In the first place, on behalf of my hon. Friends representing the various constituencies in the Metropolitan area, I should like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the appointment which he made to the Commissionership of Police during the past year. For the first time, we have as Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis a man who has given his whole life to the police service, and who, from 1911, has been a serving police officer, for 22 years in India and since 1933 in the Metropolitan Police Force.
I hope that this means that in future the chief officers of police throughout the country will be people who have had a police training and are qualified for the position by their police service; and if that can be established, I am quite sure that it will do a very great deal to give confidence to all ranks in the police service that they are regarded as being capable of holding the highest position in this force, which is so closely associated with the civil liberty of every subject.
We very much welcome this appointment, because there were rumours going round that the position might have gone to someone else. We are very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able by this appointment to dispel the rumours and quieten the apprehensions that existed.
The Metropolitan Police Estimates now placed before us are about the most detailed of any estimates that we have. In fact, they are a closer approximation to the ordinary municipal estimates than I have ever been able to discover in the various Estimates that are submitted to the House. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who will turn to pages 32 and 33 of. the Estimates will see that there is there a very detailed statement with regard to the expenses and income of the Metropolitan Police Fund. May I ask one question with regard to the income? On

page 25 of the Estimates, there is set out an item which reads:
Contribution under Section 1 of the Police Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 40), towards expenses of Metropolitan police in respect of imperial and national services … … £100,000.
The Police Act, 1909, was a curious Act. It appears to have been mainly inspired by a desire to make better provision for the widows and children of constables who lost their lives in the execution of their duty, and included in that Act was a single Section which provided that the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, could determine a sum of money to be paid into the Metropolitan Police Fund in respect of services rendered by the Metropolitan Police for their imperial and national services.
Since that date, every Home Secretary has had the advantage of having provision made for his general protection by a police officer, or rather more than one police officer—I do not want to give the trade union away too much—who is responsible for his personal protection. There are various other Ministers of State who enjoy police protection; I think invariably the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, for obvious reasons, and, on occasions, when other Ministers appear to be in some physical jeopardy, they are also included, as, for instance, during the Palestine troubles, when we made provision for the protection of successive Colonial Secretaries who might have been the object of rather dangerous attentions from people who got excited in those matters.
I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will join with me when I pay tribute to the assiduity with which these officers discharge their duties. I recollect going with my late wife to the theatre. She said to me "Well, we have shaken him off at last." I looked round in the interval, and I said to her "Six seats back, in the corner, and you will see him." There was also the famous case of a Home Secretary, who shall be nameless, who had received a complaint about an actress who was appearing with too little clothing. He decided to make a private investigation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]—and went to the theatre. He thought he had eluded the officer, but no. Two days later, there turned up at the Home Office a statement from the lady herself to the effect that if he would


revisit the theatre, she would arrange for him to meet not only herself but all the other ladies in the cast.

Mr. M. Follick: Which theatre was it?

Mr. Ede: I am not going to give anyone away on this. It turned out that the police officer, whom the Secretary of State thought he had evaded, had seen him enter the theatre, and had insisted, as his protector—apparently morally as well as physically—on being allowed to watch him while he was there.
Many other duties are discharged by the Metropolitan Police in this respect. For instance, when Marshall Tito visited this country recently, he was provided with a motor cycle escort that excited the wonder and admiration of every small boy in the metropolis.
There is a strong feeling, which as a ratepayer in the Metropolitan Police area I share, that £100,000, a figure which was fixed in 1909, is hardly adequate as a recompense to the Metropolitan Police Fund for the services which it performs today in this respect. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seek the approval of the Treasury to increase the sum so that more adequate monetary recognition may be given.
One of the anxieties of the citizens in the Metropolitan Police district is the continuing shortage of personnel of the force, compared with the establishment. The problem has confronted every Home Secretary since the war, and efforts have been made to deal with it. Substantial increases in pay have been granted, none of which has been begrudged either by the House or by the citizens of the Metropolis. These successive increments of pay resulted in temporary spurts in recruitment, which died away after six or seven months, after which the force was very much what it was before. There might have been an increase of a few hundreds, but what are they when the shortage runs into a similar number of thousands?
I note that the Home Secretary, in submitting these Estimates, does not expect any very great increase in the number of policemen during the coming year. I notice that the estimated figure for 1953–54 was £8,385,000, and that for the coming year it is a mere £15,000 more. We cannot get very many police

officers for £15,000. Anything that can be done to increase the membership of the Metropolitan Police force with suitable constables will receive the steady support of all Members of the House. We are faced with a most vicious circle. To improve the intake into the force there should be improved conditions, but we cannot improve the conditions until we get more men. We have been going round in that vicious circle for 10 or more years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to find some way inside the administration to deal with the matter.
I am certain that we have to make conditions in the police force such that women will be prepared to agree to their husbands remaining members of the force and a young woman will be prepared to marry a man who intends to remain in the police force. Almost worse than failure to recruit in adequate numbers is the wastage that occurs among men with four or five years' service, when they are just beginning to be really efficient constables and to understand the job. The large amount of night duty is one thing that makes the occupation unpopular with wives. Another is the fact that in a great part of the Metropolitan area the police have to be on duty when the rest of the community is enjoying itself. They have to see that the enjoyment is carried on within such reasonable limits as not to incommode others. When one reads of the number of vehicles that go out from London on high days and holidays, it is obvious that specially heavy duties fall on the police on days when the rest of us are inclined to think in terms of something other than work.
I am glad that it is hoped to increase the number of women in the force. I notice that their pay goes up from a total of £213,500 to £245,000. I hope that I may express what I know is a pretty general feeling that the presence of women police adds to the attractiveness of a good many otherwise dull streets in London, and that the way in which the women discharge their duties now earns for them the highest commendation. As to the duties, I need only mention the woman who tried a flying tackle on a fleeing bandit and brought him down. She succeeded in handing him over to a


man while she made the proper arrangements with a police station for his removal.
That incident cuts across the statement made not long ago by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we could not give equal pay to men and women in the police force because the duties were not equal. During the past few years there has been a greater approximation to equal work in this force than at one time would have been thought possible. That widening of the work has enabled a good many women who might have looked rather askance at the job, to regard it with some favour.
In the early days, the work of the women police was almost entirely confined to interviewing girls and women who complained of indecent assault and similar offences committed on them. We ought to pay a tribute to the women who carried on in those days with that sordid and disgusting work, and so laid the foundation of a force which now covers a much wider range of police activity. I sincerely hope that this increased figure means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to bring more of these women into the force.
I hope also that the equality of the sexes will be recognised inside the force itself. I recollect interviewing a committee of the Police Federation which said that the women had no part in the Federation. I was so astonished at this that I sent for the Act. From the Act which established the Federation it is quite clear that every member of the force is a member of the Federation and is eligible for office within it. I stayed in office long enough to see a few women turn up at the Federation's annual meeting. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary, when he has attended that annual meeting, will also have had the advantage of seeing an appropriate—I would not say yet a large enough—number of women in attendance.
Nothing could be worse than to have the kind of sex war which for years distressed the teaching profession growing up inside the police force. In that force both sexes have their work to do and their part to play. I hope that they will always be regarded as members of a force of which each sex can be equally proud.
On the negotiating body which has been set up, I notice there is provision for one woman to be included. So far as I can see, she does not appear to count very much—she is regarded in some ways as a supernumerary and there is no provision for anyone of her own sex on the other side of that body—but I have no doubt that she will not only grace the proceedings but will bring to them a knowledge of the particular problems of the women members of the force. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to reassure those women who are occasionally met with the statement that they are not really members of the Federation but attend meetings and conferences only as an act of grace.
After recruitment comes housing. I see that the amount allocated for the purchase of land and the purchase and construction of buildings, remains the same this year as last. I am quite aware, of course, that that amount includes expenditure on things not concerned with housing. The stations, the garages and the other building requirements of the force have to be met, and they are included in that figure. I hope the work of providing houses for the force is steadily going on. I myself had a very considerable disappointment when, after persuading my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he was Minister of Health to give me what I regarded to be a decent share of the housing capital expenditure, I was met by some chief constables who said, "Well, housing is not really a problem at all."
My experience from talking with police officers has been that housing is a very considerable problem with them. I wish that local housing authorities would be prepared to help in this either by the sale of houses or by agreeing to erect a house for a police officer in a housing estate. I very much dislike housing 10 or a dozen policemen together in a terrace. That involves all the domestic problems that arise when, say, one of the men gets into some small disciplinary trouble. When his wife sees the other ladies talking, she is quite certain that they are talking about him and her. I came across that more than once in some parts of the country where an unfortunate incident of that kind had occurred.
We want to assure ourselves more and more that the police officer shall live the life of an ordinary citizen, that he shall be accepted by the rest of the community as an ordinary citizen and not as a person who dwells apart from and outside their problems. I hope that housing will continue to be regarded by the force as a matter of importance.
In the discharge of their duties the police live in the full glare of publicity. I am sure that during the past few years some of us have been rather shocked by the number of occasions on which, police officers have been charged in magistrates' courts with offences committed during their on-duty hours. We must view that in its true perspective. The number of men who offend is very small indeed compared with the total number, but when a sergeant is convicted in a magistrates' court of being concerned in some burglary committed while he was supposed to be on duty, no one can deny that that causes the very utmost concern to the general public.
I hope that any police officer who is tempted will bear in mind that in himself he carries the reputation of a force which is very highly esteemed, and that to let it down in such a way is a very great attack on the standing of the calling to which he has been prepared to give his life.
The Metropolitan Police force deals with the daily life of this Metropolis. It plays a very important part in maintaining the social conditions in which we all live. Having said what I have just said, I want to add that I share to the full the pride of all law-abiding citizens of the Metropolis in this force. We are anxious that it should continue to be representative of the ideal that we have in this country that among a free people it is possible to maintain law and order without any unnecessary display of physical force.
I recollect sitting with a great American divine in a drawing room window in London. An ordinary policeman went by. Knowing that I was Home Secretary, the American asked, "What do you arm him with?" I said, "I believe that he has a truncheon somewhere. If he draws it he will have to report it when he goes back to the station. And if he uses it he will have to find not merely an excuse but a very good reason

for using it." The visitor said, "Do you think that it is safe to be in a capital city where the police have no other arms than that?" I said, "Just test it for yourself. Do you feel safer here than in Chicago?" He seemed to think an answer was unnecessary.
We must realise that our police forces, including the Metropolitan Police, depend for the maintenance of law and order upon the good relationships which have been built up over a century and a quarter between the ordinary citizen and the police officer. If we can maintain that spirit we shall remain the most law-abiding country in the world.
I share the anxiety of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about some of the modern manifestations of crime which were alluded to at Question time today. When I held his office, I asked for information about the proportion of crimes of that kind per hundred thousand of the population here and abroad. It would be very flattering to this country to publish the figures I was given, although it might cause some controversy in the other countries from which statistics were collected. Those figures show the high position we occupy in this respect. In 125 years our standard of civilisation has increased out of all proportion, under the care and with the encouragement of an unarmed police force, but that should not lessen our determination to support this force and to maintain in our people the same high regard for law and order which has steadily increased during those 125 years.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to do what I admit I found it impossible to do—to-give these men such an increase in numbers as will enable them to discharge, in the spirit I have just indicated, the duties, that fall upon them. I am quite certain that if we can get that necessary increase in establishment, the prevention of crime —which, after all, is the first duty of a police officer—will be made much easier, and its detection, when it has been committed, capable of being more completely tackled. When we cannot prevent crime, it is essential, if we are to maintain our standard, that detection should be reasonably certain and that the temptation to the criminally-inclined to chance their arm should be very much lessened.
During the course of this discussion, I hope that those of my hon. Friends who represent various parts of the Metropolitan Police district will be able to bring other matters to the Home Secretary's attention. I assure him that we all recognise the position which the police force occupies in public esteem and that we desire to do all we can to increase that esteem and the usefulness of the force.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: It is with some diffidence and a great deal of respect that I venture to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), a former Home Secretary who possesses so much closer knowledge of the official workings of the Metropolitan Police force than any ordinary Member can possibly have. I assure him that if the tone which he has set is continued throughout, this debate can do nothing but good. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee welcome the choice of subject made by the Opposition for the first part of this Supply Day. My only regret is that the debate is taking place nearly 12 months after the latest available report on the Metropolitan Police was signed by the outgoing Commissioner. I hope the time may come when whichever party is in opposition will feel disposed to ask for a debate on this subject shortly after the annual report has appeared, so that we can follow up matters arising out of the report before they become out of date.
I am certain that. the general feeling of all London and Greater London Members of Parliament is one of respect for and deep pride in this dependable and magnificent force. We all have occasion to criticise individual decisions and actions; that is the part which Parliament should play. But the Metropolitan Police force, from the newest constable to the Commissioner himself, can feel that it has the House of Commons behind it, and a House of Commons which is anxious to improve the conditions under which its members are called upon to serve. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing my satisfaction that a member of the force has been promoted to its highest office, and I wish the new Commissioner the very greatest success in discharging the heavy responsibilities which he has assumed.
Despite the fact that this report is so many months out of date, I want to pick out one or two points arising from it. I should like the Home Secretary to give us an up-to-date statement on recruitment and the present extent of the shortage. It must be of the greatest concern to the House of Commons that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police should report to Parliament that
The position "—
as to recruitment—"
continues to be very grave.
The Commissioner, giving the figures, which are startling to me, says that
Whereas in 1932 87.6 per cent, of the men required for beat and patrol duty were available, the percentage available last year was only 44.6.
Last year an advertising campaign was initiated in order to try to bring in recruits. May we hear what effects that campaign has had, whether it is intended to carry it on or repeat it at future intervals, and whether the special efforts of 1953 have taught us any lessons in the best methods of attracting recruits and avoiding wastage? I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the tragic effect of men who have become efficient police officers resigning prematurely because their wives do not want them to remain in the force.
I understand that the Commissioner's point concerning the inadequacy of the extra pay granted for serving in the London area has now been mitigated. Up to recently, strange as it may seem, the additional cost of living for a policeman in London, as compared with the rest of the country, was deemed to be only £10 per annum. As my London colleagues know, that is a small proportion of the additional London weighting granted to local government officers, teachers and others in recognition of the fact that it costs far more to live in London, as every woman knows, than in most other parts of the country. I understand that this has now been doubled and is now £20 per annum, but even so, I find myself asking whether that goes far enough to rectify the difference.
The report tells us that last year no fewer than 1,500 men in the force were on the waiting list for official quarters. I cannot speak with any knowledge of the rest of the country in this respect,


but, so far as London is concerned, I am quite certain that housing prospects have a very great effect on the attractiveness and on the efficiency of the force. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the assistance that might be given here by local authorities. This is a matter in which I have interested myself, because I am a member of Hampstead Borough Council. That housing authority has from time to time in past years received appeals from the Commissioner to consider what, in company with other London borough councils, it might do towards helping the housing of the police.
The Committee will recognise that it is not easy for any housing authority in these continuing London conditions of acute housing shortage to earmark much-needed dwellings for policemen, when that means keeping out somebody who is high on the waiting list and actually in more acute housing need. Moreover, it is not possible to be so certain in a London borough as it is in a country district that the accommodation on a housing estate allotted to a policeman in the way the right hon. Gentleman described will go to a policeman whose duty lies in that area; and so long as London housing authorities have these immense waiting lists it is a matter which must be handled with tact and consideration by all concerned.
I see his point about not herding a large number of police families together where jealousies may arise. Nevertheless, I believe that one of the most valuable methods of assistance will be for borough councils to do what, indeed, Hampstead Borough Council has done, and that is to comb through the small sites available in the boroughs for housing purposes and, instead of seizing all of them for their own people, reach an agreement with the police authorities that some of them shall be set aside for the police to build a couple of houses or three or four flats— not a colony, but a small police group.
I should say from my experience that the jealousies that might otherwise arise among people on the housing list who felt that they had been put at a disadvantage might be avoided, and yet some practical assistance could be given to the police authorities. At the same time, of course, members of the police force should be able to put their names on councils' waiting lists for houses, and should have exactly the same right as everybody else

to gain points and to get to the top of the list on their own housing needs.
There are one or two matters in this section of the report on which I should like more information. For instance, on page 9 it is pointed out that at the present time the Metropolitan Police have 53 section houses, but owing to the present shortage of men only 40 are in use. What is happening to the other 13? Is there a likelihood that they can be brought into beneficial use, or are the police authorities considering the possibility of turning them over for other purposes, whether police purposes or other public purposes of value?
I am quite sure we shall all thoroughly endorse what is said in the same section of the report:
Many police buildings are well past their normal useful life and some are quite inadequate; the time has come when their continued maintenance is proving uneconomic, and efficiency is being impaired.
Some of us have opportunities to visit police premises in different capacities, but, whatever the cause of our presence there, I think we are all concerned that in the London area there are many buildings occupied for police purposes that are utterly out of date and quite unsuited for a modern force that has to carry the heavy responsibility of the day-to-day bread-and-butter work of local traffic management and the like on top of the still heavier responsibilities of combating crime.
In other spheres I have been conscious of the intense dislike of the Treasury to sanction any expenditure on new construction. There is an idea that it is always wasteful to build afresh if the old can possibly be patched up. Indeed, it gives me real apprehension to learn from page 32 of the Estimates that the amount spent on alterations, improvements, special works and repairs is expected to go up from £245,000 last year to £350,000 this year. I am all for alterations and improvements, but I cannot help fearing that some of that money is being spent on buildings which ought to be replaced.
I think the Committee would be interested if the Home Secretary would be good enough to explain to us what is the method of planning and programming for the replacement of the older buildings. Has this to be done on a year-to-year


basis with an annual tussle with the Treasury? Or is there a long-term programme of replacement worked out and provisionally agreed on all sides, so that the only question that has to be decided from year to year is just how much of that programme can be included in the next ensuing year? My own view is that unless this long-term programming is established one always gets waste, because so frequently there arise conditions in which, if one continues to patch and refuses to replace the building, one is pouring good money after bad and wasting public funds.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the women police. The estimated establishment for the women police has, I see, been raised from 388 to 458, but at the date of these last figures that are available to us the number actually in service was not more than 388. Has it been possible to fill the gap, to make good the full number of the new establishment, or have we not risen yet to that figure? My impression is that up to now it has been definitely harder to get into the women police than for a man to get into the force, and that the conditions for enrolment as women police in London have been very stringent. If there is any difficulty about recruitment, I hope it will be made quite certain that no well-qualified young woman will be excluded merely because of the lack of some intellectual attainment which it has been thought desirable to demand but which is not a real necessity in the duties that fall to the women police.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us something up to date about the progress of enrolment of special constables? In London special constables are doing admirable work and most of those whom I know are extremely keen on it. But their numbers are relatively small. There are some 3,400 at present doing duty, whereas I understand the force would be willing to enrol far greater numbers. Would one means of relieving the pressure on the ordinary policemen be to have a fresh recruiting campaign to bring in additional numbers of special constables? I know that recruiting campaigns for Civil Defence in London are by no means uniformly successful, but I am inclined to think that the appeal of the special constabulary would get across to numbers of

people who might not be attracted to Civil Defence.
I turn to a particular part of the work of the police; that is the very difficult and often embarrassing duties which fall to them in dealing with problems arising out of traffic congestion and traffic obstruction. I am not raising this matter because I regard it as more important than combating crime, but it falls into a category by itself. It is the one sphere of police duty where the police are not in conflict with criminals, or would-be criminals. They are in conflict largely with perfectly respectable citizens, whose only offence is failure to find a permitted parking place for their car. The question may arise how hard they have tried, but certainly they are an entirely different class of London citizen from those with whom the police force was created to deal.
At present there is a shortage of 12,000 permitted parking places in inner London alone for all the cars that need them. It would therefore be quite impossible for all these citizens to abide strictly by the law in present circumstances, until more parking places are available. In that respect their crime of leaving their cars in the street is less, although it is a very inconvenient one. Those who have studied the question of car congestion in inner London have all reached the conclusion that one must draw a distinction between long-term parking and short-term parking. If one could get cars which are parked all day, or for many hours, off the highway, that would provide space for the people who quite genuinely need short-term parking for their cars.
The failure of the traffic authorities to provide room for long-term parking seems to leave the police with the extraordinarily difficult and delicate, indeed impossible, task of carrying out their functions so as to punish the really guilty and not to interfere overmuch with those who are honestly trying to cause as little trouble as possible but who simply cannot find anywhere to park their car for an hour or so whilst shopping, or making a call at an office or elsewhere.
The real offences are, first, sheer obstruction of a busy highway and, secondly, long periods of parking in places which should be available for short periods only. The police come in for criticism, and I think justifiable


criticism, when they drop on someone whose offence is that he has left a car in some street for 25 minutes between 11.30 and 12 in the morning, although, had that car been left in exactly the same position and causing no more and no less obstruction, between 11 and 11.30— traffic conditions in the street being entirely similar—no offence would have arisen. This is not the fault of the police. They have to enforce the regulations and carry out the law.
The point I am submitting is that at present we are imposing on them a duty which must be distasteful and which in fact is impossible for them to carry out with the discrimination that is called for. It is bound to bring them into conflict with large numbers of the public who wish to be law-abiding. That alone may affect regard for the law and regard for the police, and yet, as I say, it arises not through the fault of the police. It is partly this House which is at fault. I am speaking only for myself, but sometimes I come to think that the whole matter of no-waiting regulations could be more effectively and flexibly handled in London by the borough councils, under local byelaw powers, than by any Government Department. At present this House cannot give adequate attention to detailed no-waiting regulations for all the streets of London. I have a very great regard for the skill and care with which London borough councils attend to this sort of work which all depends on local knowledge.

Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is it not within the recollection of the hon. Members that a well-qualified committee went into the whole question of traffic congestion in London, of car parking facilities, and so on? Some of us have been pressing this matter on the Home Secretary for some time, but nothing has been done. It is one of the main factors which add to the work which the Metropolitan Police are called upon to do.

Mr. Brooke: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member and I have here a copy of the report to which he referred and the observations of various borough councils upon it. I hope that if the hon. and gallant Member speaks later in the debate he will support the point I am trying to make that at present it is the general administrative set-up in London

which is to blame. I am inclined to think that our allocation of duties and responsibilities among the authorities is at fault and requires reconsideration and amendment if the police are to be given a feasible job. As it is, the task of the police strikes me as utterly thankless, and it is sometimes made more thankless still by magistrates who impose penalties which seem very difficult for some of us to understand.
Let me give an illustration not from car parking offences, but from street trading. There are certain streets which are barred to street traders, but which are very profitable to them if they can get into them. It is not a pleasant duty for the police to be constantly moving on barrow boys, and then to find when they do seek to get a conviction after many warnings that the fine imposed is negligible in relation to the profitability of continuing to trade in that street. Of course the barrow will be back there in a week or two. Magistrates also, therefore, have to play their part along with the House in rendering the task of the police in all their street control duties more manageable than at present.
In conclusion, I revert to a matter on which the right hon. Member touched. That is the actual police expenditure and the method by which it is met in London as to 50 per cent, by Parliament and 50 per cent, by the borough councils, on whom precepts are made. It would not be right for this debate to go by without someone saying that there is a widespread feeling among London borough councillors that they do not have as extensive an opportunity as they should to scrutinise the police Estimates, for which they have to raise half the money.
I am not suggesting that the police should be brought under local authority control or anything of that kind. Frankly, I do not believe that there can be any fundamental change in the present method of meeting the cost, but I submit that it is desirable that borough councils, which have to incur the odium of collecting the money—and the police rate in London now is over 2s. in the £—should have ample opportunity of informing themselves, asking questions and satisfying themselves about the items included in the police Estimates.
I agree that the Estimates presented to the House are detailed as compared with those of other Departments, but I think


that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is seldom a year in which the House spends three and a half hours like this in considering them. Some further steps have recently been agreed upon, I understand, for bringing the borough councils more into the picture on this matter and giving them, at the appropriate time of the year, ampler opportunity of examining the figures. Maybe the Home Secretary could enlighten us on exactly what is being done, because I feel sure that any progress in that direction will be greatly appreciated by the borough councils.
The right hon. Gentleman anticipated a point which I was going to make when he spoke about the £100,000. I, too, as a Londoner, would dearly like to know whether that £100,000, which is voted by this House under the 1909 Act, is adequate in the year 1954 to cover the imperial and national duties which fall upon the Metropolitan Police. I should like, too, to have some explanation of the very substantial increase in the Vote for Civil Defence, which, I see, has risen this year from £21,000 to £151,000. The London local authorities have had such great difficulty in getting permission to proceed with the Civil Defence constructional work which they believe to be necessary that they might well feel a certain jealousy of the Vote for the police in this respect being increased sixfold. I instance that as the kind of question which it is right that the local authorities should have the chance of asking.
None of the questions which I have asked has been hostile in any way. Indeed, I could have made a shorter speech had I not felt that it was my duty to take this opportunity of putting some of the points which occur to borough councillors who have to raise half of the money for this force. I should like to assure the Home Secretary that we admire profoundly the close interest he takes in everything to do with the Metropolitan Police, and I believe that I speak for all London and Greater London Members when I say that, although we have our passing criticisms, we would like to put ourselves at the service of the local police in helping them in any way open to us in the very difficult, very pressing, never-ending duties which fall upon this too small force.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I must start by rebut ting the suggestion of my right hon. Frond the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that invariably the lot of a policeman's wife is not a happy one. There are many women married to men who have difficult hours of work and who have to work at night, such as engine drivers, postal workers, doctors and even Members of Parliament —

Sir Frederick Messer: And burglars.

Mrs. Jeger: —without it apparently affecting the recruiting position for the job. I think that we have to look a little further than these rather un-chivalrous suggestions that have been put forward for the lack of recruitment.
There is one problem allied very closely to the wife in all this, and that is, of course, the housing problem, because it is not just a bad thing to have your man away all night, it is even worse to have him at home all day. The problem of family life in congested conditions, with father having to sleep during the daytime and mother trying to keep the children quiet, is the kind of situation which leads to very serious friction and the kind of problem which, I know, my right hon. Friend had quite seriously in mind.
I should like to pass on to the question of the women police and to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid on both sides of the Committee. It is really remarkable that we have now increased the recruitment to 470 women police in London, which is a small enough number, and yet it does seem to have made an impact on the public consciousness and on the consciousness of Members of Parliament quite out of proportion to the smallness of the number involved. I think that is a tribute to the quality of the women police. There are still just over 50 vacancies for the women police establishment, but I hope that the suggestion that I thought that I read into the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) that the standard of entry might be re-examined will not be lightly followed.
I. think that it is remarkable that during the last two years for which figures are available there has not been one dismissal


from the women's police force on the grounds of misconduct, ill-health or inefficiency. I think that is a tribute to the good sense of having a high standard of selectivity. Vacancies exist and will, I imagine, continue to exist while there is this high standard, but I think that the answer is in a greater public cognisance of the duties of the women police.
I think that hon. Members could do a great deal in their public capacity to help to dispel the picture which many headmistresses and other people who could be influential in this matter have painted of policewomen as great Boadiceas in blue, with size 12 shoes, doing very heavy-footed and heavy-handed work. On the contrary, there does not seem, in spite of all that has been said, enough public awareness, in the words of the Oaksey Report, of the fact that
Policewomen are, and should be made to feel that they are an integral part of the police force and not merely employed for rather restricted and specialised duties.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary could confer with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour to see if this point cannot be put across more strongly to various young people at a time in their lives when they are considering their careers.
I should like to refer to the accommodation of policewomen. Although we have been saying today that there is an increasing approximation of duty between the men and the women in the police force, it is a fact that the only equality of remuneration is the rent allowance which, I believe, is at present 17s. 6d. a week. As to actual pay, I understand that the women get 90 per cent, of the pay of men of equivalent rank. I am sure that those who live in London realise the inadequacy of a rent allowance of I7s. 6d. It means that about one-half of the women police who have to live in section houses have a rather special economic advantage in that the value of the accommodation and the amenities of the section house approximate to more than 17s. 6d. a week, and I think that it is unfortunate that there should be this disparity between those who live in and those who live out.
When the Home Secretary is examining the question of increasing accommodation, which I think he must do, will he consider that there may be a better use of money to help more women to

live out than to spend money on building more section houses? This applies particularly to women police officers. Surely it is natural that the more mature professional women should have a home of their own. Especially as one gets older, it is difficult to enjoy communal hostel life. Evidence on this aspect was given before the Oaksey Committee, and I should be glad if the Home Secretary could consult representatives of the women police as to their wishes in the kind of accommodation which is provided for them.
To return to the question of pay, we all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is examining the possibility of equal pay. I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that the claims of the women police, whose responsibilities are increasing to such a great extent, wall be borne well in mind.
I should like particularly to dispose of one argument, which is often used, that women are more expensive and worth less than men because their rate of sick leave is so much higher. I have taken the trouble to get comparable figures, which show that the slick rate percentage among women police is only 1.08 per cent, higher than among men. This does not seem adequate justification for paying the women police 10 per cent. less than men.
We would all appreciate clarification on the question of representation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, I know, feels that under the existing legislation, given enough gallantry by the men, women could have a fair share at the conference table. Women attend the branch boards and the central conference and committee of the Police Federation, but in an advisory, non-voting capacity. One of the recommendations of the Baker Report was that the constitution of the Federation should be modified to enable policewomen on these occasions to be represented by their own sex. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would tell the Committee whether he has legislation in mind to clear this matter.
But the most important thing that we can do this afternoon is to ensure that every opportunity is taken throughout the country, and especially in London, to give the public a fairer and more correct


picture of the work of the women police, with particular emphasis on their general duties—for example, that women now attend the Police College and undergo the same training as men, and that the number of arrests made by women is increasing every year. They make their arrests often with great courage and sometimes not without charm, which is not unimportant. If the Home Secretary is able to persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to help in the work of recruitment, I recommend that special steps be taken so that the best examples of the women's force go to talk to senior girls. They must invariably be handsome. That is most important in what we are trying to do.
There is one course which, I hope, the Home Secretary will not feel that he must pursue in the recruitment drive. It concerns the suggestion, which has been adopted by one local authority, of having women police cadets. At present the lowest age for entry is 20. That is quite young enough for a girl to take on these heavy responsibilities. It is much better that the years between leaving school and reaching the age of 20 should be spent in knocking around the world, in the widest possible sense, and having experience of the greatest number of people, things, circumstances and events, so that a girl has a few years of life behind her when she enters this very responsible profession.
I should not like it to be thought that because I have spoken particularly of women police, I am any less sincere in my appreciation, which we all share, of the work of the whole Metropolitan Police force. Like other hon. Members, I have had my own unhappy experiences. Judging from the tenor of his remarks, the hon. Member for Hampstead has also probably left his car here and there on occasion. But we take all these things in good spirit and join in the congratulations to the police force of the Metropolis.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in saying what an excellent job we all feel the women police are doing. Obviously, from what the hon. Lady says,

a burglar would rather be arrested by a woman police officer than by the other sex.
It is extremely refreshing that a subject of this kind can be discussed completely above party politics. At least, this is one subject which party politics do not spoil. We have been very fortunate in both our present Home Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), to whose speech this afternoon we listened so closely, in the great work they have done for our police forces generally. If we are lacking in recruits for the police, it is not because of any failure by our Home Secretaries during the last few years.
It strikes me as being rather strange how our present Home Secretary is so completely overworked. He is batting on a very different subject today compared with yesterday, and I am sure he must find today a great relief after his task yesterday in dealing with television.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: This is a better subject.

Mr. Harris: As the hon. and gallant Member says, this is a better subject.
There cannot be any hon. Member who does not wish to do all that he possibly can to improve the conditions of the police in so far as they affect in any way the question of recruitment and the present shortage of the Metropolitan Police. I suppose we must be something like 20 per cent, short in the number of recruits that we need for the Metropolitan Police. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) in asking for an early statement regarding recruitment so that we may know the position up to date.
If in any force such as this we happen unhappily to be short in manpower, we should deploy that force to the best of our ability. One would not wish to say any word of criticism against the police, because we all know what an excellent job they do, but many of us feel very strongly when, after hearing of severe attacks of violence, particularly upon elderly people and others, we see police cars tucked away in turnings solely with the intention of trying to catch someone who is doing an extra five miles an hour on a road where there may be no trouble whatever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead said that over the last 20 years, instead of 80 per cent, of the police force being kept on beat and patrol to safeguard the public from attacks and violence, which disturb and depress us all, the percentage has dropped today by over half.

Mr. H. Brooke: That was not exactly what I said. I said that, whereas in 1939 87 per cent, of the men required for beat and patrol duty were available, the percentage available for that duty has now fallen to 44.

Mr. Harris: I think this is merely an argument on the question of percentages; but I appreciate being put right. I still maintain the point that Parliament puts responsibility on the police force to carry out so many varied responsibilities that it is up to the local districts sometimes to get their priorities right.
I do not want to criticise the police force, because I join with other hon. Members in their great pride in it, but I wonder whether it is wise for our police to hang about so much in motor cars and at police points when our patrols could be stepped up so much more effectively to protect the public from those savage attacks which we unhappily experience from time to time. We should step up these patrols so that the police are in a position to waylay those who carry out these savage attacks. Then these villains, once they were waylaid, could be dealt with adequately for those attacks.
I share with other hon. Members a very great pride in the police force. I realise it is working under very difficult conditions. That is inevitable when it is so short staffed, and it is up to every hon. Member do his or her utmost to help where possible. I feel that the improved pension conditions have brought some satisfaction, because there is no doubt about it that when men consider joining the force they discuss the matter very fully with their wives or fiancees to determine whether they are taking any undue risk and should turn to a safer occupation.
As and when we can improve conditions in the police force, we should endeavor to do so. In my own district, housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead has mentioned, is ever improving. Housing is not so much a

problem for the police force generally as it was. I agree that considerable improvements have been made in the last few years in the day-to-day conditions, but I feel that the more we can do to improve the lot of the police force the more it must help recruiting. It must be a matter of great concern to every hon. Member that there should be any real shortage of manpower in the force. There can be no doubt that there is a shortage, and in order to meet that situation we should endeavour to make the occupation as attractive as possible.
I should like to conclude by saying that I appreciate very much what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has done and is continuing to do for the police. I find, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that any proposal put forward to him for improving the lot of the policeman is very carefully considered, and one can gather from the tenor of this debate that there is a general feeling in the House that we must do everything that lies within our power to improve the lot of the Metropolitan policeman to whom we owe so much.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I join with the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) in welcoming this debate today as an entirely non-party one. The only thing I should like to add is this: that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary might in future years arrange some kind of consultation, private if necessary, between himself, the senior members of the Metropolitan Police and direct representatives of the Metropolitan boroughs.
I feel that the peculiar constitution of the Metropolitan Police, who are directly under the Home Secretary, leaves a certain gap in consultation which we ought to try to fill, and it might be filled properly by some sort of committee of the kind I am suggesting for the exchange of information, suggestions and so on. I should add here that the relationship on the working level between the boroughs and the police is excellent. Nothing needs to be said about that, but it is of interest sometimes to exchange views, particularly on long-term problems.
I suppose that the representatives of the Metropolitan boroughs would agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for


Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) about difficulties over various forms of street control, the inadequacy of some patrols, the erratic behaviour of magistrates and so on. That could be sorted out on a collective basis, particularly by collecting information from the whole area which is available to the police and which takes a lot of hard work to collect from other sources.
If a representative from Paddington attended such a consultation meeting, sooner or later would come up the particular street difficulty associated sometimes in the public mind with Padding-ton. That is the question of commercialised vice or street prostitution. Those who make a great outcry about a subject of that kind do not always help, and protests about it are not going to reduce the evil. Sometimes the actions of well-meaning people have had the opposite effect by calling attention to the fact that in certain areas certain things are taking place. It is quite a mistake to advertise one area as against the other, and it is also a mistake to ask the Home Secretary to try to move the trouble next door, because obviously that is no solution and does not bring any comfort to the next borough.
It is perfectly true that the police respond extremely well to invitations for increased activities, and again I should like to take this opportunity of saying what an excellent effect patrols of women police have in this respect. They are far more effective than men. Their appearance in a certain area is almost good enough to move on the trouble.
If, as I have suggested, a consultation debate were to take place with representatives of the boroughs, matters would be dealt with which would be quite out of order in a debate in this House. The question of the desirability of increased penalties would be one of the subjects, but I must not discuss that today, though I am not sure whether it is as important as it sounds, except in this respect, that it must be very depressing for the police themselves when, as a sort of dreary routine, they have to bring certain prosecutions for which they know only certain penalties can be imposed.
It would be a great encouragement to those who have to do this kind of work if they knew that the information they

were collecting was helping to build up a pattern whereby a central examining body could see what is happening to the organisation behind this sort of thing. After all, the most that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can hope to do is to make the decision some time to go over the whole matter and effect a certain change in pattern, particularly in the financial background. A reform committee such as I have suggested cannot work as fast as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, because it does not get the information from all the different sources which show the direction in which these social evils are moving and how they are beginning to move, such as by a change of organisation, a change of area or something of that kind. I think it would be some encouragement to the man on the beat if he knew the report in his notebook and the report sent in at the end of the tour of duty was going to build up a mine of information which would enable high-level decisions on policy to be made.
It must be remembered that in Paddington there are several vast areas where the people are normal, ordinary, home-loving, hard-working people. That is not our problem. I will tell the House what our problem in Paddington is. It is Paddington Station, which was completed in 1854. I hope that nobody will be misguided enough to celebrate the fact this year. I hope the people will go into mourning instead. The erection of that station produced a series of architectural efforts based on 99-year leases which are now falling in. The falling in of these leases has produced a system of property ownership out of which emerged a series of problems. One problem, to which I have already drawn the attention of the Home Secretary, arises from the ownership of fag-ends of leases in these areas which are decaying.
Evils which develop there are not easily remedied by an intensification of penalties or by any simple formula, but they can be studied with the aid of the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police. The police are much better able to collect the necessary information than anybody else. They know what they are doing. They know what the problem is and to what end their reports are collected. They are able to observe what happens when old properties change hands and they know the temptations


which are put in the way of the new owners to engage in an easy method of earning a living.
All this seems to me to reinforce my original argument that consultation between the police and the boroughs should be on a more regular and more free basis. It should be on a basis of exchange of information. I hope that, perhaps as a result of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may consider recommending some such development.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I should like to join in the tributes paid by hon. Members to the work of the Metropolitan Police, sometimes in most difficult circumstances. In that connection, I should like to return to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who spoke of the difficulties the police experience in dealing with traffic problems. First, tribute should be paid to the police for the way in which they handle traffic on certain big occasions.
Last Saturday afternoon 100,000 people descended on my constituency from various parts of the country, chiefly the North and the Midlands, for the Cup Final. I must say that the way the traffic is shepherded into a very small area in Wembley in a matter of a few hours and out again in an even shorter time is to the credit of the planning of the police. It shows how they have worked out an excellent system for dealing with the traffic and getting it away as quickly as possible. The police deserve praise for the way in which they handle events of that kind. They deserve our sympathy also. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke of the number of police who have to be on duty on occasions of that nature when other people are enjoying themselves while they are doing a job of work.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the question of parking troubles in Central London. This is a serious problem which is not the fault of the police. It is the fault of Parliament, the Government and the local authorities, or probably a combination of all three, for not having dealt with it earlier. I wish that the police would pay more attention to obstruction caused by many commercial vehicles the

drivers of which cannot find room to park by the kerbside exactly opposite where they want to deliver their goods. Often these drivers park out in the stream of traffic even though sometimes there is plenty of space only a few feet further along the road. It is difficult for constables to be on duty at these places all the time. Is not this a case where mobile police on motor bicycles could help?
There is a lot of thoughtlessness on the part of commercial van drivers in this respect. If a furniture can has to unload a grand piano, clearly one cannot expect the driver to park more than a few yards away from the premises where it is to be delivered, but when the goods are very much smaller, the drivers should be more reasonable. They should not inconvenience the stream of traffic by taking away half the width of the road, which is the effect which one parked vehicle can bring about. Steps might be taken to persuade these drivers to be a little more reasonable in their attitude towards other road users.
I do not want to suggest that commercial vehicle drivers are the only offenders. This morning I was going down Baker Street, which is now a one-way street because of road repairs so that at the very narrowest part there is room for only two lines of traffic, when one motorist thoughtlessly stopped his cat outside a shop and held up the stream of vehicles behind him, the drivers of which had no idea he was going to pull up. That was an example of selfish parking which can be dealt with only by the drivers being chased by the police as much as possible.
Sometimes I wish that in certain narrow streets in the West End where for the moment there are either no no-waiting regulations at all or where they do not come into force before 11.30 a.m., some persuasion might be used to prevent a few cars waiting on each side of the street where usually there is plenty of room for all the vehicles to wait on one side. Thoughtless parking reduces the space available to other traffic. There are one or two streets in the Westminster area, such as Carlos Place and Mount Street, and the narrower part of Seymour Place in Marylebone where a little attention in that direction would prove most helpful.
I also support the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead about unilateral waiting restrictions being decentralised so that they come more under the borough councils than under the Ministry. We do not want to have different kinds of regulations in various parts of the Metropolis, but sometimes if the system was a little more decentralised the regulations might be introduced more speedily. There was a case in point at Wembley. Application was made in February, 1951— I speak from memory—for unilateral waiting restrictions which have not yet been brought into force. I do not know who is to blame. I do not even know, not having looked at the matter recently, whether the borough council still wants the regulations, but in a case like that the local authority probably knows better than anybody else, in consultation with the local police, whether the regulations would be helpful. The local authority ought to have the final say in the decision. I hope that that point will be considered.
Lastly I come to the question of recruitment. I should like to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend can tell us how the shortage of recruits to the Metropolitan Police compares with recruitment to the police forces in other big cities. I imagine that the problem is much greater in London. If it is, can anything be learned from the big cities about why it is more difficult to attract recruits to the Metropolitan Police?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields suggested that night-work was a deterrent. I know that night-work is objectionable in some ways— I used to do a certain amount of newspaper work at night before the war—but it has compensations. If one does night duty from, say, 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., one can go bed for seven or eight hours and have an afternoon free to indulge in some amusement, such as, for instance, golf, when other people are at work. I should like to know what is the average proportion of time spent by police officers on night duty compared with other duties.
I am sure that we all support the efforts which are being made to stimulate recruiting to the Metropolitan Police. We hope that before long the force will be up to strength.

5.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) introduced a topical note when he referred to the Cup Final last Saturday. That enables me to express an opinion which I have felt for a long time, and which I believe must be shared by most hon. Members. The Metropolitan Police handle crowds better than any other police force in the world.

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ard-wick): Except for the Manchester police.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: It is possible to make that claim without overstating the case at all. It is one further reason why the people of London are grateful to the Metropolitan Police for their services, because London is the centre attraction to people from all over the country and, indeed, from all over the world. For that reason, the inadequate contribution of £100,000 from the Exchequer under the 1909 Act now demands urgent reconsideration. If it was considered sufficient in 1909, it is lamentably inadequate now.
The matter boils down to this. The ratepayers of London are having to subsidise various activities and responsibilities of the Government—because this is the centre of government—and the money at present allocated for this purpose is quite inadequate. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to say something on that point, because it does not need legislation. So long as he gets the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is possible for him by administrative action to increase the amount now being allocated for this purpose.
I shall not dwell on that point because that was dealt with by me in a speech which I delivered on 29th January, 1952, and the Home Secretary was present on that occasion. I referred to the 1909 grant of £100,000. I also referred to the need for some form of consultation with the local authorities in connection with the precept. The Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, for example, has to find this year something like £220,000 towards the cost of the Metropolitan Police. That local authority has no say whatsoever in that matter, and this applies to the other Metropolitan boroughs and local authorities within the Metropolitan Police area.


They have no say whatsoever in the fixing of that precept. The conditions in this respect which prevails here in the metropolis are quite different from the conditions which prevail outside the metropolis where there are watch committees and standing joint committees consisting of democratically elected persons who fix the police rate.

Mr. Ede: Could my hon. and gallant Friend explain how a standing joint committee is democratically elected? I served on one for 28 years, and I always felt that I was among the autocracy and not the democracy.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Standing joint committees are nominated by the local authorities and consist of persons nominated by the local authorities in their areas.

Sir F. Messer: Not the justices.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Part of a standing joint committee consists of persons nominated by the local authorities in the area, which enables me to say that it is only in the Metropolitan area where not even that vestige of democratic control exists. As has already been pointed out, the democratic control exercised by a standing joint committee is not very democratic, but at least it is more democratic than the system which prevails in the Metropolitan area.
I hope that the Home Secretary will have something to say about the relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the local authorities in whose area they operate, particularly in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on 29th January, 1952, in relation to remarks that I made on that occasion:
The more detailed points which the hon. and gallant Member propounded are, as he said, not points to be answered on the spur of the moment. They are matters for inquiry, and that inquiry I shall make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 127.
I hope that the Home Secretary has now completed his inquiry into the points that I then raised, and that the Committee may have the benefit of his deliberations on the subject.
Having made that speech in 1952 enables me to make my speech today very much shorter, because the question of the relationship with local authorities and of

the £100,000 grant may, so far as I am concerned, be taken as read. There is also the point, which was mentioned by preceding speakers, about housing provision made by local authorities for police officers. It is a difficult problem, as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) has pointed out.
I should like to remind the Committee that local authorities also have the problem of finding accommodation for police officers who are either dismissed the service or whose services are terminated because they have reached pensionable age. Local authorities also have the problem of finding accommodation for the widows and dependants of police officers who die, because in cases of that kind the police flat has to be vacated by the family in question.
In Brixton I have two or three very large blocks of police flats where this kind of case crops up from time to time. It ought not to be assumed that merely because a local authority is not providing as much accommodation as is necessary for serving policemen, the local authority is not discharging its obligation in respect of retired policemen or the families of policemen who died in the course of service.
I hope also that in connection with any building programme on which the Metropolitan Police authorities may be engaged or may be contemplating, they will get away from this idea of herding together large numbers of police officers and their families in these very large blocks of flats. They are segregated from the rest of the community, and I do not think the average person realises how much a policeman's life differs from that of other people. But how greater the differentiation becomes when we have a few hundred policemen living in a block of flats in the heart of an area like Brixton. It is not a good thing, either for the police themselves or for the surrounding population, because the whole strength of the British police force lies in the close, friendly and intimate relations that we like to think have always existed and will continue to exist between the police and the general population.
We have to remember that policemen are, in every sense of the word civilians in uniform. As a matter of fact, we as ordinary citizens, although we are not in uniform, can be called upon if the need


arises to carry out many of the policeman's duties. If we see something wrong going on, our duty as ordinary citizens is to do what the police would do in those circumstances.
Now I come to a point which has not been raised so far in this debate. It is provided for in the Metropolitan Police Fund Estimates, and it relates to the Metropolitan police courts. If hon. Members will refer to page 33 of the Estimates, they will see there a series of items showing that the estimated cost of the Metropolitan police courts for the present financial year is about £209,000. The money is obtained partly by precept, partly by Exchequer grant, and also by a small item, miscellaneous receipts.
That is the amount allocated for the expenses of the Metropolitan police courts, of which £172,000 is required for salaries and pensions. The magistrates courts in the Metropolitan area are in a most deplorable and unsatisfactory condition. The Home Secretary will recall that as long ago as 1937 there was a report of the Departmental Committee on Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Area. It was presided over by Sir Alexander Maxwell, who was then Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office. So, as long ago as 1937, there was a need for modernising and extending the Metropolitan magistrates court buildings, and the cost of improving them then would have been much less than it would be now. That has not yet been done.
It is important that even our magistrates courts should be reasonably dignified, because a certain prestige ought to be maintained, and it is therefore a pity that not more is being done to improve those courts in London. People are apt to overlook the fact that about 98 per cent, of all the cases heard in the courts of this country are heard in magistrates courts. It is therefore most desirable that they should provide elementary convenience and comfort.
This inadequacy of the court buildings in London has another adverse consequential effect. It is a matter about which I have complained previously. It means that the services of the lay magistrates in the Metropolitan area cannot be used as

effectively as they should be. We know that the magistrates courts in the Metropolitan area are, for the most part, used by stipendiary magistrates, but there are 800 lay justices in the L.C.C. area and their staffs who, because of the inadequate accommodation, cannot be fully utilised to relieve the congestion and delay that is going on in the stipendiary courts, and which has not lessened in the 17 years that have elapsed since the Maxwell Committee reported on the matter.
So far from increasing the duties of the lay magistrates, they have been reduced, because the County of London Justices Jurisdiction Order, 1953, with which the Home Secretary is no doubt familiar, has decreased the class of cases that lay justices in many of the petty sessional divisions have been accustomed to consider. That links up with a general observation with which I wish to conclude my remarks.
In the Metropolis the central Government now, through the Home Office, appoints, controls and pays the police and the stipendiary court staffs and, through the Lord Chancellor, the Government appoint the stipendiary magistrates who, it is true, are not paid out of these Estimates but out of the Consolidated Fund. In those circumstances, we are faced with this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
In London there is a close association between the Executive Government, on the one hand and the courts of justice on the other, which are most directly concerned with the general public. In the rest of the country the problem is different, because there is not the same control there over the police forces as the Home Office in London exercises over the Metropolitan Police. As has been pointed out, these come under the watch committees, and the court staffs are subject to the control of the magistrates courts. It is a point of some substance, on which I hope the Home Secretary will meditate, that there is an unduly close association between the Executive and the judiciary here in London so far as the police and the magistrates are concerned.
The 98 per cent, of all the court cases which I mentioned earlier as coming before the courts of summary jurisdiction represents a high proportion of the cases which have to be heard. This is a ques-


tion of high policy which cannot be decided easily and quickly. It links up with the relationship between local authorities in the Metropolitan area and the Metropolitan Police, and it has these other effects upon the use of lay magistrates in the London County Council area.
These are all matters which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider in due course in view of the announcement which we are all hoping he will be able to make on other matters of which he has been given prior notice because they have been raised previously. I admit, however, that this point has not been raised previously in any detail, but I hope that it will meet with the consideration and the careful attention which I honestly and seriously think it deserves.

5.39 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: This debate is not one of a party nature, and it is perhaps slightly restricted by a geographical boundary, since the Estimates we are discussing are for England and Wales. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will not feel that this is an intrusion on my part, as a Scottish Member, to contribute a few words. It is not my intention to follow in any detail the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who speaks from a fund of knowledge. As a Scottish Member, I want to pay a tribute to the police force in the Metropolitan area and in the other parts of England and Wales. I should like to do that also for my own area, but it would be out of order on these Estimates.
It so happens that before I came to the House of Commons my work was associated with the tourist industry. It is quite certain that in this great London Metropolitan area, and indeed throughout Britain, the impact of the police on tourists is very great. People of many nationalities, whose customs are different from ours and whose knowledge of this country is scant, ask millions of questions in the course of the year, particularly in the London area. I found that the impression on overseas tourists was one of amazement at the understanding and fund of knowledge which was available to them from the police forces of this country.
The police, particularly constables on the beat, in their daily contacts are helping the greatest dollar-earning invisible import that we have. If people come in their hundreds of thousands from America and Canada and other countries and go away impressed by the answers they receive to questions and the polite way in which those who drive high-powered motor cars through our narrow streets and park them in the wrong places are treated, the value of all that cannot be computed in pounds or dollars.
This Estimate of nearly £34½ million appears to me to be a good investment for that reason alone, apart from the need to protect life and property and to enforce the law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is well aware of the difficulties of recruitment. It was said only yesterday, in answer to a Question relating to a police force elsewhere, that the educational standard required of entrants into the police force in that part of the country was the educational standard at 15 years of age. That seems to me a low requirement. It would be interesting if we had some indication from the Home Secretary of the educational requirements for the Metropolitan Police.
It was said that
The policeman's lot is not a happy one.
Certainly it has been a slightly happier one in the past 12 months from the financial aspect. But what is most important is the esprit de corps, not only in the Metropolitan Police, but in the county police forces and forces in other great areas in the country. That esprit de corps can only be achieved by good leadership, good guidance and understanding from those at the head of the force. We in this country are very blessed in the leadership given to the force and in the understanding that those who hold the higher posts have for those who serve under them.
The net increase in the Estimate that is before us is £1,622,000 and, considering increased salaries and higher costs generally, that seems to me a modest increase. There is, of course, no indication of any division of opinion in this Committee, but it is well that we should recognise and seize this opportunity to pay a tribute to our police forces. Perhaps nowhere in Britain are we in


closer contact with the good work done by the police than here in the surroundings of the Palace of Westminster. People from all nations and from every rank, people in authority in other countries, and often people who cannot speak our language, come to the Palace of Westminster. They receive nothing but courtesy, understanding and guidance from our force.
This country in general should be grateful to the police who, until the last few months, have given their time and energy for perhaps a slight reward. I trust that the time will come when we shall be able to concede further increases of pay for this force, if that is necessary for recruitment and for the sake of the morale of those who are already in the force. I hope that there will be no hard feelings in this Committee about a Scottish Member intruding into this debate, but what I have said I have said with sincerity. I am sure that the effect of our police forces on visitors from overseas is one that we cannot compute in pounds and dollars.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: My own impression of the administration of the police is that it is a weird and wonderful thing. I remember when I first entered public life, having been elected to the august body of the Middlesex County Council, being given to understand that I was a free agent to challenge anything that went on there. When the finance committee in its report submitted the requisition of the joint standing committee, I immediately opposed it, only to be told by the chairman that I was out of order. I was amazed and, as one who had always claimed to be constitutional, I wanted to know how it was possible to be out of order in challenging the right of the finance committee of a county council to ask for money, which apparently I could not oppose. That resulted in some measure of research on my part.
It led me to realise that this London of ours is a thing that is not easily understood. There are three Londons They are the London over which the London County Council exercises a measure of administrative control, the London of the postal region, over which nobody exercises control, and the Metropolitan

Police area. The Metropolitan Police area controls two complete counties, that is, the administrative County of London and the County of Middlesex —

Mr. Ede: The administrative County of London less the City of London.

Sir F. Messer: Plus parts of Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire.

Mr. Ede: And parts of Surrey.

Sir F. Messer: Yes, that has a measure of importance.
When one considers all that, it is really a tribute to realise that the administration was worked so efficiently. That, of course, is concerned with the Home Secretary's Department. If we get it clearly into our minds that the only part that the local authorities play in this business is to provide part of the money, we shall understand that what the Home Secretary does as the administrator-in-chief is to manage the whole and say, "You have to pay a part of the cost."
I wonder how he could easily do other than he does. Requests have been made that before precepts are asked for consultations should take place, but everybody knows that a precepting authority never consults. The Metropolitan Water Board, for example, is a precepting authority but it does not ask the body from which it draws money for a consultation about how the precept should be drawn up before it asks for the money. We have to put up with those things, but there is no reason why there should not be a closer connection between the Home Office and the local authorities not merely in money matters but with regard to other things.
I have said that I was surprised to find that this precept could not be challenged. I found that there was this joint standing committee which was the responsible body and which was composed in part of county councillors and in part of magistrates. County councillors have a responsibility to the electorate, but magistrates are not elected; they are appointed. They have never to go before the public and justify such palatial premises as those of the Tottenham magistrates. In Tottenham there is a wonderful police court. It is a pleasure to be sent to prison from it. I have been in that police court as a witness and as a defendant and I have sat in it as a magistrate.

Commander Donaldson: Which is the safest?

Sir F. Messer: I was summoned for exceeding the speed limit in the old police trap days. I was going at more than 20 miles an hour. When I heard the policeman who was presenting the summons tell the bench the speed at which I was travelling, I was only too pleased to plead guilty, for I never knew that my old motor-cycle could travel at that speed.
It is a remarkable comment on the police force that, although the police constable did his best to have me found guilty, at the end of the case he gave me a splendid character and said that I had complete control of the motor-cycle, that there was no obstruction on the road and that it was early on a Sunday morning. He did his best to get me off as lightly as possible after he had done his best to get me found guilty. But that is the police force. I have sat as a magistrate and have been surprised when, after a constable has given his evidence, he has done his best to put the other side of the picture and to give us a very fair view of the case.
Perhaps I may return to the point about local authority association with the Home Office. Let us consider the vexed question of car parking. In it we see many anomalies. There is a parking place right down the middle of Portland Place—one of the widest thoroughfares in London—where it is possible to leave a car for two hours. What happens? Those people who use the offices in Portland Place put their cars by the kerb and leave them there all day.
Parking is a serious problem, because there are few facilities in this part of London. I stopped driving my car into London when I found that driving itself was bad enough but not half as bad as finding somewhere to put the car after I had stopped. This is where local authorities can play a very important part, and I support the views of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) in this connection.
I remember an occasion on which the borough, a part of which I represent in the House, objected to a Home Office decision that a street was to be used as a parking place without lights—that is, cars could be parked there without having

their lights on. As one who knew the street very well, I was amazed at the decision and I could not understand how the Traffic Advisory Committee to the Home Secretary had agreed to it. The road had a sharp bend and cars would be parked outside a busy sorting office. At the corner was a busy railway station.
I suggested, as an alternative, a quiet road which was little used, but I was told that it was not suitable because it was a cul-de-sac. In fact, there was a turning so that the cars which had been parked could have been driven out quite easily. Nevertheless, the local authority could not have their way because it was assumed that the Home Office knew best.
In such cases it is said, "The local police are of the opinion that this road is suitable." On the other hand, our local police change very rapidly. Naturally, a place like Tottenham attracts the best. Consequently, they readily earn promotion and are moved elsewhere. Whatever may be the reason for the present situation, I think local authorities should bear a major responsibility for parking. If they cannot find sites for properly organised parking places, then they ought to have an opportunity of deciding which are the best streets in which cars can be parked.
I want to say a few words on recruitment. When we are faced with the problem which arises because enough material is not available, surely we must see that we make the best use of the material which is available. I am not in a position to offer any criticism here, but I ask whether there are duties now being performed by the police which could as easily be performed by people who are not in the police force. I can imagine all sorts of circumstances in which the police are doing duties which perhaps could be performed by others, without the power of arrest—performed by people who need not act in an official capacity as policemen. I imagine that there is some ground for an inquiry into this field.
We must face the fact that unless we are prepared to pay the police tremendously high salaries, they are bound to be attracted into work where they can earn more under better conditions than in the police force. Where we have only an available labour force of x dimensions, where we cannot improve upon it and cannot prevent the police from leaving the


force and obtaining better jobs in other directions, it seems to me that we should examine whether the best use is being made of the men we have.
I fear that I am exceeding what may be a reasonable length for a speech on such a subject as this, about which everybody is agreed. There is more justification for speaking at length on a controversial subject. I want to add my word of praise, however, to the personnel of the Metropolitan Police force. I have travelled pretty widely in the country and I have met with courtesy wherever I have been, but never, perhaps, with quite as much help as I have had from the Metropolitan Police.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I want to stress a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)—that in the Metropolitan area we are all paying a large sum of money with apparently no possibility of an examination of how the money is spent until it is too late to affect the Estimates. I see that £20,700,000 is being spent on the Metropolitan Police altogether and that the precept for 1954–55 is no less than £9,500,000.
I am sure that millions of Londoners will agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—except the night prowlers—that London's police give us a first-class service. I have seen some of it, not only as an ordinary citizen but as a member of one of the Scotland Yard committees which looks after street-to-street collections. We do not meet very often, but that is because the department has worked out a first-class method of judging whether an application to solicit sums in that way is reasonable.
I am also a member of the Standing Joint Committee of the London County Council and the justices. That body only manages the police courts—it looks after them, sees that they are kept in good condition and sees to the staff and their salaries—plus an annual visit to the tote to see that the electrical tote machines are working properly. It spends a fair amount of money. It presents its estimates to the London County Council every year, and if it is felt that there is need for the criticism that is given.
When we turn to the cost of the police —the normal police force—although we have to find £9½ million, there is no apparent possibility for any of the authorities which receive the precept and have to levy the rate to know beforehand whether the estimates are fair and reasonable, and whether they are getting a really full return for the money spent. It seems to me that, although the police have been managed in this way for a long time, thought should now be given to the possibility of allowing the authorities which have to raise the rate to see the estimates before they are presented as precepts on the local authority.
I admit there would be difficulties, and I do not want, nor do I suggest there should be, a watch committee in London, although apparently watch committees, while having very little power over the expenditure, are able to make some examination and criticism. I believe that some consideration should be given to the possibility of the authorities which have to raise this sum of nearly £10 million a year in respect of London's police having a look at the estimates, which must be prepared many months in advance. Some sort of joint representative committee of all the local authorities in the London area might reasonably be given the opportunity of looking at the estimates which Scotland Yard prepares, and perhaps pass on its criticisms to the Home Secretary when his Department is also looking at the estimates. I understand that those estimates are looked at inside the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department by a very efficient section.
I must confess that it gets under my skin a little that such a heavy expenditure should be put on the backs of the London ratepayers without there being any kind of representation at all as to how it should be spent. I hope that the Home Secretary will give consideration to this criticism, which has arisen very strongly in London in the last couple of years, at all events in the political circles in which I move, with a view to finding some opportunity of examination of and observations on, the police estimates before the precepts are passed on to the collecting authorities.
I wish to refer also to the housing question, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred. It may seem strange.


but a lot of people in London are perturbed and worried about it. The police force has been building blocks of flats, and on 28th February, 1952, the Home Secretary told me, as reported in col. 191 of Written Answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that a block of police flats in the Peckham Rye area was being built, and that the tender figure was a certain amount. I worked out the total all-in cost of those flats, on the basis of the tender figures, at about £2,300. I should like to know how the cost actually worked out.
I have a letter here from a constituent, who is apparently also very interested in this question. In it he says:
The flats were completed last summer, and I am assuming that the total cost can now be compared with the estimated cost
My correspondent would like to know what the figure is. There are many other people who would like to know, too. It seems to me, on the figures so far as I have been able to ascertain them, that the cost of building these police flats is very much higher than the cost of building ordinary local government flats.
If that is so, it seems to me that there must be something wrong, that perhaps sufficient attention has not been given to seeing that the cost of building these dwellings for the police represents good value. I do not complain about the building of this police accommodation, which I admit is necessary and ought to be undertaken. I say that as one who for a good number of years was chairman of the L.C.C. housing committee and had the distasteful job of saying that, because of the tragic circumstances in which tens of thousands of London families were living, we could not put policemen at the top of the list for any housing accommodation which the police force might be needing.
I repeat that I am not complaining about the building of police accommodation, but I am asking that some thought might be given to seeing that we get good value, as we on local authorities have to do, and that the final costs when worked out are not too far removed from the original estimate. As things are at the moment, it is impossible to find out, except by putting a Question on every case to the Home Secretary, and that should not be necessary. I should be glad to know whether the Home Secretary is satisfied that the final cost of building the

huge blocks of flats around London for policemen, and the cost of building houses in the more rural areas of the Metropolitan area, is working out at a figure close to the kind of figure which the Minister of Housing and Local Government insists that local authorities must be kept to. I do not think there is much justification for anything very much more expensive.
The only other point I wish to make is that, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton, I have always been amazed that the Treasury contribution to the costs of the Metropolitan Police under the Police Act, 1909, is still at the figure of £100,000. I am told that that was the figure fixed when the Act was passed, and that it was a more or less reasonable amount in those days. The carrying out of duties by the police on what are termed national and imperial occasions, such as, for example, the time when we had an enormous number of motor cycles following the President of Yugoslavia around London—which always seemed to me to be quite unnecessary—ought in these days to be fairly a charge on the national Exchequer.
I should like to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary in his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The figure under the 1909 Act ought to be revised to one much nearer £500,000 than the £100,000 which is apparently still being contributed by the Exchequer towards the cost of the London rate. It seems completely unfair to expect London ratepayers to bear, as they do at the moment, this very much heavier cost compared with 1909, and for the whole of that extra cost to be paid out of the London, Middlesex and other rates in and around the Metropolitan area. It would be fair, would tend to reduce the rate precept for police purposes, and would be just in every way for the Treasury now to pay for national and imperial services by the Metropolitan Police a sum a good deal nearer the real cost of the services in these days than is being paid by the Treasury.
It is obvious that if, in 1909, £100,000 met the case, it is a quite fantastically silly figure now and should be increased. I hope that one result of today's discussion on the Metropolitan Police will be to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary in squeezing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very much


larger grant towards the cost of the Metropolitan Police than is at present paid under the 1909 Act. In that way we may relieve to some extent the charge borne by London ratepayers.
My view of the police in London has changed compared with what it was some years ago. I remember the hard things I said to them during the unemployed demonstrations immediately after the First World War, but I have since learned that there were probably faults on both sides on that occasion. It is true that the police in London do a very good job of work. Recently there have been some unfortunate incidents in my constituency as a result of which there were police count cases and trials. The trouble was not so much with the police, but arose because Clapham Common was not being accepted by the authorities as a responsibility after dark. They did their best to clear up some of the trouble from what were known as the "cosh boys," and the fears of a lot of people about walking over Clapham Common have gone—although, of course, they can come back.
It is right and proper to pay tribute to the way in which the police generally carry out their duties in London. As a Londoner, I think the hackneyed statement, "Your London police are wonderful" contains a good deal of truth. I hope that one of the results of this debate will be to assure them that they are being supported by Londoners as a whole.
I wish to stress that it is important that the charge on London ratepayers should be cut as far as possible and that the additional burden of services under the 1909 Act ought to be met by the Treasury. I ask that some scheme be worked out to make it possible for the authorities which receive the precept to have a look at the estimates for the Metropolitan Police before the precept is delivered.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sorry that I was not able to be present in the Chamber during the early part of the debate. I have a particular interest in this matter, which is of general interest to Londoners, in that where I live now I appear to be surrounded by the administration of justice and law and order. Immediately opposite to my home is a probation officer; further down the street is a juvenile court, and opposite to

that is a large administrative headquarters belonging to the Metropolitan Police. So as I look round I have every reason to hope that justice and law and order are being preserved.
There are two particular items to which I wish to refer. One is the parking of cars, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer). I hope that on this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, as I gather that there is a division of responsibility here. To the ordinary public the situation appears to be absurd and anomalous. A considerable number of Londoners make a regular habit of parking their cars for the whole of the night in authorised parking places. They do so because it is prohibitively expensive to garage them.
In doing that they are causing no harm to anyone. The cars remain quietly where they are and do not cause any annoyance. But technically the owners are breaking the law, unless they rise from their beds every two or four hours to move the vehicles for 20 yards or so. The police try to behave as reasonably as possible, and where no vexation is caused they quietly ignore the fact that the law is being broken. However, that cannot go on indefinitely, and periodically someone who has been parking his car without incident for some long period is suddenly hauled before the court. That is not the proper way to administer justice. I do not know what is the solution, and I do not suggest that the Metropolitan Police are in any way at fault in this matter. It is something requiring the close consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
Near the borders of my constituency are Olympia and the Empress Hall, which periodically attract a great deal of motor traffic. The result is that on certain nights quiet residential streets normally regarded as suitable for parking places, are filled with vehicles, and when the spectators come out of Olympia or the Empress Hall there are prolonged noises of all descriptions. Again, it is easier to describe the problem and the vexation it causes to the residents in that area than to suggest a remedy. The remedy may well be the complete replanning of parking


facilities in London. That is a matter which concerns both the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport and I hope that it will be given consideration.
May I say a word on the question of police finances and the London local authorities? It is true to say that the situation in London is quite unique. The Metropolitan Police precept on the Metropolitan boroughs. It is true that other bodies, such as the London County Council, precept on the Metropolitan boroughs. But, after all, the London County Council is responsible for the precept and when it collects the rate the boroughs can say, in effect, to the ratepayers, "Look here, part of this rate is the London County Council's responsibility and elected councillors have to answer for it." Even the Metropolitan Water Board has among its members people who are members of elected authorities. It is true, if I understand provincial procedure, that a standing joint committee precepts on local authorities, but such a committee has at least some members who are elected. London is unique in that a precept can be imposed on London boroughs by a body which is not elected at all and not legally controlled.
I understand that at present the finances of the police are discussed after the event. After the precept has been made, there are periodical consultations between the Metropolitan Police authorities and the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan boroughs. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us some of the matters which have been raised in those consultations; but at best, they are only consultations after the event. Is it not possible to have consultations before the precept is made?
There may be constitutional difficulties about that. Since, in effect, these are estimates for Parliament, it may be that they cannot be shown to or discussed by anyone before they are presented to the House. I do not know whether that is an insuperable difficulty; perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us. I think it true to say that, although it would be incorrect to suppose that the people of London are in any way complaining about their police force, there is a growing feeling about this rather unsatisfactory financial arrangement.

6.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am sorry to have to intervene at this point before two hon. Members opposite have spoken —

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I have been here all the afternoon.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: —but we have an understanding to occupy the time until 7 o'clock only and a great number of questions have been put to me which I wish to answer. I am sorry that these two things mean that this is the time when I must ask to have the chance of being called.
I am glad that this debate has taken place and taken the course which it has. I do not wish to appear fulsome, and I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will not suspect me of that when I say that the speech with which he introduced this debate has given me more pleasure than almost any other speech I have heard in the House. Of course, it was the study and exposition of a subject which is very near to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman and to mine, by one who knows a great deal about it and who can express both the good points and the difficulties with a vigour which all his colleagues, where-ever they sit in the House, very much appreciate.
I think it would be convenient if I ran through the subjects which have been raised in the debate, and I shall try to group them. I hope that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who was unable to take part in the debate, will not hesitate to interrupt me if I come to a point on which he had a question, when I will do my best to answer it.
I will deal, first, with the financial subjects, because the £100,000 was the first subject with which the right hon. Member for South Shields dealt. Of course, he gave us the date of the Act and referred to its contents with complete accuracy. However, there is one general point in that regard, which is that in 1909 the overall 50 per cent, grant had not been introduced. At that time, the Government contribution was only in regard to certain elements in that expenditure, and related, as the right hon.


Gentleman will remember, to the 4d. rate at that time. The Government grant now covers all expenditure, and that is something from which the local authorities have benefited.
At that time, the £100,000 was designed to deal with two categories. The first can be described as services which arise from the fact that London is the capital city and the capital of what was at that time called the Empire. It is, let us hope, the central city of the Commonwealth and Empire today. These services are varied, and include such things as looking after this House which are familiar to us all. The other class of services were those rendered to other forces. Of course, there is still a great service rendered to other forces in the existence of the Criminal Record Office, which is available to them today.
In fairness to other forces, although we are not discussing them this evening, I wish to say that the extent of other forms of assistance to them has decreased with the development of the criminal investigation departments in these other forces. The provincial police, if I may so call them, do not, in fact, call in Scotland Yard today with the unanimity which writers of detective stories always depict. In 1953, they asked for help in seven cases, and there was the same modest total in 1952, so that on that side there has been a decrease in what one may call the general service which the Metropolitan Police force has -given to other forces.
On the general point, the views of the London authorities have been very carefully considered on a number of occasions. When the right hon. Member for South Shields was Secretary of State for the Home Department, he received a deputation on the subject. I can only say that I shall, of course, consider what has been said in this debate. I am equally ready to receive a deputation, and to discuss the matter further should my colleagues in the House so desire.
I now come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) some two years ago—he gave us the date—and which he mentioned again today. It is the other financial problem, the relationship with the local authorities and between the local authorities and the central Govern-

ment. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who has courteously told me that he has had to leave the Committee, and the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), who wound up the debate for the other side.
One has, of course, to take a balance on this matter. I should like to divide my remarks into two parts—the question of the powers and the answerability of the Metropolitan Police force, and the question of finance, on which I will deal with the point raised especially by the hon. Member for Fulham, East. The consequence of the present method of administration is that responsibility rests on the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament and to no one else; but, as a consequence of that Parliamentary responsibility, the details of the administration and operation of the Metropolitan Police can be the subject of Question and debate in the House of Commons, as can those of no other force.
If any Home Secretary is asked about another force, he has to say, "That is another matter. I am not responsible for the administration. I am only responsible to the House of Commons that an efficient force should exist in that county borough" But here one is answerable, and that is tremendously important. Many of us have had long years in the House—many longer than myself—but the fact that that can happen, and that an incident can be inquired into at once, is a remarkable and very valuable factor.
The other point is—and this is a sort of connecting link—that the accounts of the Metropolitan Police Fund are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. I wish to say only a word or two on the reason for that. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) really put his finger on it when he described to us the extent and composition of the Metropolitan Police area. It is a large, composite area, and, of course, the force is one of enormous size. No one has suggested even toying with the idea of separate forces. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said from that point of view, especially as London


is a capital city and unique among capital cities, for this special form of control. I think that, after a century and a quarter, on balance we should agree that Sir Robert Peel was right and that the control ought to be in a Minister who is responsible to Parliament and who can be questioned there.
I now come to the financial side. I have been asked by a number of hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, what the new suggestions were which I was considering at the time to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. The arrangements which have been made are these. First, the Estimates used for the purpose of determining the amount of the precept are those prepared in October and published in the Civil Estimates in late February or early March. This arrangement has been adopted for the first time this year. Hitherto the precept has been based on the revised Estimates prepared in January, which, since they were not submitted to Parliament, could not be made available to the local authorities.
The second point is that the Receiver meets the financial officers representing the inner and outer London authorities in May and discusses the figures in the Estimates with them. At this meeting they will this year and in future be given the material figures of income and expenditure for the previous year.
Again, I should like to follow what my predecessor and other Secretaries of State have announced, namely, that I am willing, as they were, to receive representatives of the Inner and Outer London Standing Joint Committees if, as a result of the Receiver's meeting with the financial officers, the authorities want to raise points of policy with me. No such meeting has taken place since 1952.
There are, therefore, these three points of alteration. If hon. Members, after having had a chance to look at them, care to have a word with me about the matter, I shall be very pleased to discuss it with them.
I now come to the question of recruiting. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and almost every other speaker. There is one thing which I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether, strictly speaking, the Home Office comes out of it well or

badly, but it is a fact that our estimate for last year of £8,385,000—the right hon. Gentleman will remember that it has been increased to £8,400,000 for the present year—was to cover 800 recruits which we hoped to have but did not get. Therefore, the estimate will still cover 800 recruits, and we are going out to try to get those recruits. I think that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman, although I must admit that I failed to get the recruits last year. However, we are still in the market for recruits; we are not sitting down under the present position.
Might I say what that position is with complete frankness to the Committee, because it is most important that we should know it, and I want all the help I can get? The authorised male establishment of the Metropolitan Police on 31st March, 1953, just over a year ago, was 19,647, and the actual male strength was 15,979. On 31st March this year the authorised establishment had risen to 19,698—that was as a result of certain adjustments in the higher ranks—and the actual male strength had fallen by 80 to 15,899.
During the calendar year 1953, 1,033 men were recruited and 1,172 left the force, a net loss of 139. That was—this is really the point that the right hon. Gentleman made demonstrated in results—the result of a steady fall in recruiting which had begun in the autumn of 1952 and carried on well into the summer of 1953. It was from February, 1953, onwards that wastage exceeded intake.
The recent picture is somewhat more encouraging. During the first three months of 1954 the intake was 350 and the wastage 278, a net gain of 72. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that was after the new rise in remuneration had come into effect. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in his picture. We got the increase after the rise in remuneration came into effect; that continued for some time and then the figures proceeded to decline.
I want the Committee to understand that this is not for want of action on our part. Everyone who has spoken has agreed that there is no easy solution to the problem. I should like to point out what we have done about improving the conditions of service. It is essential to improve the conditions of service, to


instil a pride of service, and to ensure further facilities for welfare and recreation.
What have we done? At the beginning of this year there was an increase in the starting pay of constables to bring them up to the scale of £445 per year to £550 per year, and an increase in the London allowance for constables and sergeants from £10 to £20 per year. That was the result of agreement in the new negotiating body, the Police Council for Great Britain, which is now charged with the duty of considering questions of pay and other conditions of service. I emphasise that it was the result of agreement.
Since the war a number of other measures have been taken which have cumulatively improved the conditions of service. During the right hon. Gentleman's time there were two pay increases. In addition to that, these other improvements have taken place. Overtime detective duty, boot allowances and rent allowances have been increased; the discipline regulations have been overhauled to ensure that they command the confidence of all ranks; annual leave has been increased; the uniform has been improved; and the setting up of the Police College, to which the right hon. Gentleman and I both attach great importance, has provided for the higher training of those likely to qualify for appointment to inspector and higher posts.
I will deal with housing separately, but these are general matters which really do implement the further recommendations of the Oaksey Report. A matter to which some reference was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), concerns the police cadets, whose establishment has recently been increased to 500. It is hoped that a great many of them will return to the force when they have done their military service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead asked me about publicity arrangements. Special recruiting publicity arrangements were introduced in 1953, costing £40,000 a year. Advertising in daily and weekly newspapers has been intensified, and large posters are displayed at railway stations. These arrangements came into force in the middle of 1953, and it is difficult to estimate whether

they have contributed, or how far they have contributed, to the improvement, but we are doing everything that we can.
I want to tell the Committee two things. The first is that I could not agree more strongly that, if we want to make a further and more substantial reduction in the figures relating to crime, an increase in the police forces in London and the other large cities is a vital factor. Without the knowledge of the police and without good detection officers, we are enormously handicapped in the war against crime. The second thing is that I would ask, as I have done before—and I am sure I shall not ask in vain—that all my colleagues in the House, wherever they sit, will do their utmost to help in this recruiting campaign for the police, because in that way they will be doing a real service to their country. I shall be very glad if any of them can make any suggestions, however sharp the prod to myself, in dealing with this task.
I have kept housing separate because it is such an important matter. The position is that, up to 31st March of this year, 3,380 married quarters were available in the Metropolitan Police district. A further 575 were under construction, and another 750 in the planning stage. Since the war, 2,180 married quarters, which is virtually twice as many again as were available pre-war, have been provided, and this is a notable achievement. I have given the figures for the period for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible as well as for that relating to myself, because he and I will never fight about our individual contributions but are glad to think that something is being done about the problem.
I think this achievement is notable, considering the difficulties that exist in London in finding sites available for development for police housing purposes. It is fair to say—and this should be known, because it is important—that it represents something little short of a revolution in the conditions of Metropolitan Police officers. The hon. Member for Clapham put in a word of warning, but I should have said that the standard of accommodation was good without being lavish. I have been over blocks of these married quarters myself and have seen the people living there, and I think that it is a case of so far, so good.
Plans are going forward to raise the total to 5,000, which will represent about one-third of the strength of the force, and the Receiver hopes they will be completed by March, 1956. To put it in another way, 840 police officers moved into new married quarters in the 12 months ended 30th April. There is still a considerable waiting list, but an effort commensurate with the size of the problem is being put forth. Consideration will be given this summer to the question whether 5,000 is still the appropriate figure at which to aim.
With regard to section houses for unmarried officers, eight major works, costing over £20,000, have been carried out since the war, and these were schemes for buildings which were either begun before the war and have been completed since or which suffered damage during the war and have been repaired. Six further major works are now under construction, and two more will be started during this year. There has also been a steady programme of alterations and improvements.
I must now say something about the 11 section houses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. The difficulty with regard to the 11 section houses that are not being used is that, while it is true that they are being kept as being available and in reserve, it is virtually impossible to put them to any other use. They are of the cubicle type, and most of them were regarded as below standard as far back as 1932. We are holding them as a reserve, but I do not think we can be blamed for not using them unless it is absolutely essential. We have considered converting them to married quarters, but the cost would be too great.
Again, I do not want anyone to think that I am complacent. No one responsible for housing will ever be complacent while there is a considerable waiting list. On the other hand, I think that we have made notable progress, compared with the position which obtained at the end of the war, and we are determined that this progress shall go on. In this matter, I speak for the whole of the Committee, irrespective of party.
I was asked about the future programme. I should like to say that a long-term programme for the replacement of buildings was worked out before the war.

It has been taken up and looked at again since the war, and a programme of priorities has been drawn up in agreement with the Commissioner. How far one can go will always depend on the amount of capital investment which is authorised at the time.
I was asked about special constables, and I should like to inform the Committee that we have at present 3,428 men and 85 women, which represents a small increase of 32 during the year. We find that the best method of getting people to volunteer for this important work is by personal contact, but I am willing to bear in mind what was suggested on this point during the debate.
I am glad that the position concerning women police was mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, who spoke so eloquently on this subject. I hope she will allow me, as one of her constituents in Holborn, to pay a tribute to her speech. I should like to tell the Committee what is the position. First of all, the strength has increased from 335 on 31st March, 1951, to 468 on 31st March, 1954. We set our target in May, 1951, at an establishment of 338, which was put up by September, 1953, to 524. We are still aiming at an increase. Policewomen are now attached to 106 stations, one in each sub-division and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been a remarkable increase in the variety and coverage of their work. I agree with him that we are grateful to those who were prepared to do the original work of the policewomen. There are 48 women on the C.I.D. establishment and 36 at present in post. Women on the beat are allowed, like the men, to carry through inquiries into the cases that have come their way.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the legal opinion he gave as to the entitlement of women to membership of the Federation. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I mention a fact which will give great pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, as it does to myself. He mentioned the new non-statutory body which is operating at the moment, the Police Council. There will be a woman on the police side. I should like to inform the right hon. Gentleman, without mentioning the name, that the lady who was his private secretary, and afterwards was my private secretary, has now, by promotion, got into a position on the other


side of the Council, so that the fair sex will be represented on both sides in the future.
I was asked about legislation. We thought it would be better to have the non-statutory body established by agreement. Everyone agreed, so that it can operate and we can see how it works. Legislation can therefore be produced on the firm basis of something which has actually been working and is in operation.
Several interesting speeches were made about parking. The hon. Member for Fulham, East, rightly and frankly said that parking was a joint responsibility of the Minister of Transport and myself. That Minister prescribes, and I have the duty of carrying out his wishes. I assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend and myself have been consulting, are consulting, and will go on consulting on the general problem.
It is only fair to the police to bring out my next point. A number of police is naturally engaged on this work. During 1953, the Metropolitan Police dealt with offences of obstruction and breaches of parking regulations by oral warning and written caution before they came to summonsing. I think the Committee will be glad to hear that the police on foot issued 181,093 oral warnings and 21,535 written cautions, and issued only 24,000 summonses. The traffic patrols gave 48,760 oral warnings and 842 written cautions, and took out only 1,082 summonses. Despite the memory of the hon. Member for Fulham, East and the hon. Lady who referred to this subject, those are the facts.
I am anxious not to infringe on the other part of today's work. I would tell the hon. Member for Tottenham that we are very much alive to not using the police for office and other work that can be done by somebody else. Had I more time I would no doubt be able to interest him in telling him of replacements and releases of police officers to do the work which, as he suggested, is more properly theirs. That has been going on, and since the working party that we recently had on this matter further progress has been made.
I welcome the debate and it was an excellent thing to have it. I have justified the present constitutional set-up by

the fact that a Minister is answerable here. It is very good that at reasonable intervals we should have a day when hon. Members can express their doubts and the Minister can answer them as best he may. I welcome the debate also as throwing light on the difficulties of the police and drawing attention again to its great achievements.
The problems of recruitment remain troublesome and will continue to call for much attention and the help of all men and women of good will. There can be no dispute that the force, which is admittedly seriously under strength, is doing extremely well a most difficult task, at a time when legislation constantly adds to the duties and responsibilities of the police, when traffic problems grow more serious month by month, and when the crowds that gather from time to time to watch great occasions of State in the Metropolis call for the greatest powers of tact, patience and forbearance on the part of the police who are there to keep order.
The police are criticised from time to time in individual cases. It is absolutely right that in a democratic society it should be possible to criticise the police. Only a fool would maintain that out of a Metropolitan force of 16,000 and of more than 70,000 in the country there never will be men who go wrong. Of course there will be, occasionally. It can be fairly claimed that the police have in recent years continued to foster a good relationship with their fellow-citizens. When I have been addressing gatherings of policemen, whether in the Federation, or at a recruit passing-out course, or when opening new quarters, I have tried to say that the idea that police duties are primarily or exclusively related to the prevention and detection of crime is now a thing of the past. They are the friends and helpers of the citizen in a tremendous number of the aspects of his life.
What is their position? Looking at it dispassionately, I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I can say without complacency that a good deal has been done in recent years to improve their pay and conditions of service. The police service now offers to a young man a career in which he knows that he will give good service to the community. The financial rewards are not inconsiderable and by his work and merits he can earn


promotion to the highest posts in the service. I hope that that will become realised.
Among all the police forces in this country, I am sure that the Metropolitan Police has built up a reputation second to none. New Scotland Yard, its headquarters, has a world-wide reputation. If I may put it this way, the London "bobby" himself is known throughout the world as the symbol of British democracy. Long may that continue.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask two questions? First, why is it necessary that the Metropolitan Police should have a carryforward balance of £3½million? Secondly, having regard to the increasing number of policemen who have been relieved of traffic responsibilities by the adoption of traffic lights, has there at any time been a review of the strength of the force?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Dealing with the second point first, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be under any fear except that the establishment now fixed is considerably below that which could be justified by the needs of London.
On his first point, I would have to look up the figures. It sounds to me like the remnants of our old friend—one of the police housing Acts. I would not like to tie myself. I will look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pargiter: The amount on capital account is just over £¼million.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —[Mr. R. Thompson]—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS)

7.4 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure, in the interests of the consumer, the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts and to utilise and promote other measures to protect consumers against any tendency on the part of a minority of manufacturers and traders to debase the quality of goods supplied to the public.
I wish to preface my remarks by saying that hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am sure on the other side, realise that it is only a minority of traders and manufacturers who are seeking to debase the quality of the goods on sale to the public. Nevertheless we believe that this minority should be dealt with. We think that the Board of Trade is neither willing nor able to ensure the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts. Even if it were, we believe also that other measures should be promoted to protect consumers and reputable traders from that minority who are seeking to debase the quality of goods supplied to the public. I shall endeavour this evening to substantiate both these points.
In any debate dealing with the Merchandise Marks Acts, two dates in particular will obviously come to mind. The first is 1st February, 1954, when the extensions to the Acts became law. The other is 13th March, 1952, when the President of the Board of Trade told the House about the quality safeguards which were to follow upon the ending of the Utility scheme. The date 13th March, 1952, is a significant one, and I propose to commence with it.
The President will remember that, speaking in the debate on the Budget proposals, he stressed the guarantees of quality and performance which were to be offered to the consumer. With the full authority of his office—which is a very great office in this country—he gave a pledge that those would follow the abolition of the Utility scheme. On 13th March, 1952, speaking about the establishment of a range of British Standards (Utility Series) specifications


for cotton cloths and household textiles, he said:
In particular, the cotton industry have told me that it proposes within a few weeks to deal in this way with the most popular specifications, which cover a wide range of cotton cloths and household textiles up to about 75 per cent, of the trade in those particular types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1584.]
When, on 12th November, 1953, we on this side asked the President what had happened to those guarantees which he had given, he replied:
… the cotton industry has not found it possible to devise agreed standards based on Utility specifications as originally proposed.
He went on to add:
the cotton industry has fallen far short of what they said on that occasion, and I am making representations to them to that effect.
I hope that tonight we shall hear what representations the President made and what effect they had on that industry.
On 13th March, 1952, we were also assured by the President that rayon cloths which satisfied tests of shrink resistance and colour fastness would be marked. When, on 12th November, 1953, we asked what had happened to those guarantees the President gave this answer:
It is true that in March, 1952, I repeated the assurance given to me by the rayon industry that the cloths would be marked. The arrangements they have made have gone a long way to meet what they said then, but it does not include this marking."—(OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1119–20.]
What did it include? The House may recall that what it did include was marking on the invoice. I distinctly remember asking the President on that day what good he thought that would be to the housewife on going into a shop to buy some rayon cloth to find, not the mark on the cloths guaranteeing any quality, but the fact that those cloths had been marked on the invoice sent to the shopkeeper.
The House will also remember that the President's replies were rather typical. I do not wish to be offensive, but it is an understatement to say that they were evasive. When we asked what had happened to the guarantees, all we got was a statement from him that he was not prepared to have compulsory marking. Nobody had asked him for that. I see that he is nodding his head, but we had merely asked what had happened to the

guarantees which he had given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, wriggled out of it and, if I may use a colloquialism which is understood in this country, gave a "Smart Aleck" type of reply which will deceive nobody who is at all responsible.
The President looks amused, but the industry is not. I wonder if he realises that, in the two years since he announced the introduction of the kite mark scheme, the rayon and cotton industries have not been able to produce the results guaranteed by the Government. I want to ask him what he has done about that, and whether he really cares about the consumer in this respect.
During the same debate, the President stressed the necessity to work out standard tests for the strength of cloths used for children's wear. Everybody knows that children are very hard on their clothes. I do not know whether he has received the same representations as have been made to some of my hon. Friends and myself but, if he has, he will know that parents are particularly anxious that boys' knicker suits should be strong. They certainly need to be.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why British Standard No. 2473, dealing with cloth for boys' knicker suits, has not even been granted a kite mark, although the President specifically stressed the need for this in connection with children's wear in March, 1952? I shall give him the answer I have received from the trade and, if he has a contrary one, he can give it to the House later. The answer from the trade is that the cloth has not been given a kite mark because the standard is not comprehensive. The minimum requirements dominated by it are so low as to give no guarantee whatsoever of satisfactory wear.
Bearing this fact in mind, it seems rather a mockery to read what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, again on 13th March. He said:
Those who are accustomed to buy Utility goods will be glad of the assurance in the future that they are of British Standard quality. I like the term ' British Standard'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1584.]
Does he like British Standard No. 2473, which is so low that it does not even merit a kite mark? Is that the kind of standard which the President is offering in


Place of the Utility scheme? If he is not aware of it, I can tell him that this British Standard No. 2473 is merely a specification by which the lower end of the shoddy trade can deal in certain types of cloths for making boys' knicker suits. So here, at the very beginning, are three examples showing how the Government and the President have fallen down on their jobs.
We believe they are responsible, because they gave the House and the public the guarantees. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is noting these points. What reply shall we be given about the pledges made by the rayon industry, the cotton industry and the manufacturers of cloth for children's wear? So far, when we have asked Questions, we have been given evasions rather than answers, but I am hoping that a detailed answer will be given as we are now discussing an official Motion.
During the Second Reading debate, which took place on 26th June, 1953, the President made some general remarks about the Bill, as it then was. I wish to quote only one sentence. Speaking of the Bill, the President said:
This Measure presents no obstacle to honest traders. Instead, it offers them some protection against unfair competition and gives some safeguard to consumers against false descriptions."—]official report, 26th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 2248.]
That sounded all right, but it depended on what the President meant by the word "some." I do not know whether he has seen a copy of the "Drapers' Record" for 10th April of this year, which has an editorial on this subject. That periodical has a weekly circulation of approximately 50,000. It does not belong to the Labour Party, and it does speak for the drapery trade. It made this comment upon the right hon. Gentleman's remarks:
Nine months ago the head of that Department"—
Meaning the right hon. Gentleman—
said it offered honest traders some protection against unfair competition and gave consumers some safeguard against false claims. But he appears to display small interest in ensuring the observance of this beneficial legislation.
If the President is not prepared to take any notice of what I say, perhaps he will take some notice of what is said by an official organ of the drapery trade, which, to the best of my knowledge, is certainly

not of the political opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House.
During the Second Reading debate we expressed the belief that the Bill should have given the President power to make compulsory marking schemes. The President objects to this idea; but that is our opinion. We have always been told by the President of the Board of Trade that it is up to the public to find out the quality of goods for themselves. The cry of the right hon. Gentleman was that the public should be given freedom of choice.
In the case of some of the shoddy goods which are on sale in the shops—whether they are textiles, furniture, or pseudo-leather goods—it is quite impossible for anyone to know what they are like until they have bought them and taken them home, when they find that their money has been wasted. We say that it is the duty of the Government, whichever party may be in power, to protect the shopper from that sort of thing, just as the ordinary citizen is protected by law from the burglar or anybody who breaks into his home and steals—because it is stealing to take money in exchange for shoddy goods.
In the Second Reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
It nevertheless remains very important that the buyer should exercise some intelligence."— [official report, 26th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 2309.]
I would ask him whether he is capable of knowing what ingredients go into different goods, because I am not. During that debate I mentioned goods which were lapelled "wool and nylon," and said that it was quite impossible, merely by looking at them, to tell how much wool or nylon they contained, and that I thought they should be lapelled accordingly.
I want to mention the President's attitude on the question of informative labelling. Whenever hon. Members on this side of the House have raised the matter, we have got nowhere. It seems as though the right hon. Gentleman has a completely closed mind on this matter. It is not merely a case of his trying to jibe at me or at others who raise the-subject. I do not know if he is aware that the informative labelling of textiles is being steadily pursued in Australia, South Africa, the United States and


Western Germany, to mention only a few countries, and that information on fibre content, against which the President so steadfastly sets his mind, roust, in many cases, be supplied by manufacturers exporting cloth or clothing from this country.
In November last year I asked the President whether, as our exporters had to label any wearing apparel sent to Australia, United States or South Africa, British shoppers could not have the same information made available to them. The right hon. Gentleman said that it could not be done and that he was not going to have it. I wonder if it fills him with horror to realise that the trade not only thinks that informative labelling is necessary, but that there should be percentage labelling, according to fibre content? The reason for that is that nowadays there is the custom, growing more common every day, of using strong synthetic fibres in our ordinary and classic materials. We can all think of many of the strong fibres— nylon, terylene, perlon, orlon.
The use of these strong synthetic fibres in materials makes it quite essential that the customer buying the materials should know what proportion of those strong synthetic fibres is in them. In a debate on the Adjournment on 23rd March last year, I gave the Parliamentary Secretary one example. He did not think a great deal of it. It was the example of the laundries. The laundries are complaining today, with considerable justification, that they are not responsible for the damage done to many of the goods during the laundering process. They say it is quite impossible to tell without labelling what synthetic fibres are in the materials. It is not until the damage is done, either by their using a too hot iron or too hot water, that they find out. They have been asking for this informative labelling for some time.
I think it will be admitted throughout the trade that, speaking generally, if we use up to about 10 per cent, of nylon in a material it does not have any strengthening effect. It affects the manufacture only. The strength of a material is, however, added to in a fantastic way if the proportion of nylon in it goes up to about 25 per cent.
About three weeks ago I went into a shop in London and I saw some knitting wool on sale there. Not being as clever as the Board of Trade, I did not know what proportion of wool and nylon was in that wool; I could not tell from looking at it. However, hope springs eternal, and I thought I would buy it, and send it to the President if it was not right. I obviously am still an optimist. Anyway, I bought that wool, and here it is. It has on it a label that says:
Argyll Double Knitting. Wool and Nylon.
It is manufacturered by Arthur Mortimer and Co. (Wools) Ltd., Bradford. This is the wool.
I bought it, and I had it researched into at a laboratory, and got a report. The report says that the percentage of nylon in it is 1·2. I say that it is robbery to label goods "wool and nylon "when the percentage of nylon is 1·2. It is robbery to say of anything that it is made of such and such materials if any constituent mentioned is only 1–2 per cent, of the whole. I hope the President will agree.
I thought I would try once more, and I sent this to the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that even he would think l.2 per cent, really was a little too much. [hon. members: "Too little."] Yes, that is what I mean. I was told that information had already been laid with the President about this wool. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, would tell us what action is being taken about this. If the answer is that some action is being taken, I shall be both surprised and very pleased, but if the answer is that action is not being taken, I shall have great pleasure in letting him have the report on the wool.
During 'the Second Reading debate, to which I have already referred, the President told us a good deal about the British Standards Institution. He told us that in recent years the Institution, in consultation with the trades concerned and with consumers' representatives, had been working out standards for consumer goods and non-consumer goods. During the past two years I have done my best to try to find out the poistion of the Institution in so far as the kite mark standards are concerned. Although the Institution may find it hard to believe, I am a friend of the Institution and an admirer of the work


it has done. My complaint has never been about that. It has been that I think both its power and its authority are insufficient, and any criticism of the British Standards Institution that I have made in this House has always been directed at that weakness.
I hope that the President will consider this seriously. Because the power and the authority of the Institution are insufficient, we have not good enough quality standards for the consumers. I would mention only some obvious ones, curtain materials, dresses and children's shoes. Hon. Members can add to those as they like. We have not even compulsion for the standards that are agreed.
As hon. Members will know, the Institution developed from the Engineering Standards Committee appointed by the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1901. It was incorporated as an Association in 1918. Its present title dates from the grant of a Royal Charter in 1931. By 1939 the Institution already covered a wide range of products. In the war these was need for standards in certain war materials, and for A.R.P. and Utility goods. When the Utility scheme ended in April, 1952, it meant the demand for new standards for furniture, textiles and clothing.
The point I wish to underline, with which everybody may not be familiar, is that the original Committee laid down certain basic principles for the Institution. There are only three I wish to mention. I should be glad if I could have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I hope he will comment on these points. The first is that the work on a standardisation project should be undertaken only on receipt of a request from industry. Secondly, that there should be agreement by all interested parties before a standard is issued. Third, that the British Standards Institution staff should not initiate proposals for standards. One word about the funds of the Institution. They come from three main sources, from membership subscriptions, from the sale of its publications, and through a grant in aid from the Government.
These facts show that the B.S.I., with all the good will in the world, has neither the power to demand that standards be produced nor the authority to compel a sufficiently high quality. It has not even the standing to demand that such

standards as are agreed shall be compulsory.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare): The hon. Lady will surely agree, in fairness, that she has forgotten one point about the Institution? It has set up and made use of an advisory panel to try to arrive at some determination where the need for standards exists. I think she must give it credit for that. I happen to be the Chairman of the subcommittee of the Select Committee on Estimates that examined the Institution only last year. I think we were all impressed by that progressive step it had taken.

Miss Burton: If the hon. Gentleman had waited he would have heard me come to that. I am only half way through dealing with the Institution. As the present set-up between the Board of Trade and the Institution is what I have described, I would put forward five points to help solve our problem. I do not know whether everybody on this side of the House agrees with me about them, but they are five points in which I believe.
The first is this. I think that quality must be decided before price. Secondly, I think that a quality standard should be a standard worth having as judged by the ordinary consumer who buys the goods. Thirdly, if this quality standard is to be worth having, some manufacturers will have to be excluded because their standard will be too low. Fourthly, I should like to see such a standard mark of quality made compulsory for all goods attaining or bettering it. If compulsion is not regarded with fourthly, I should like to see an agreement among all the manufacturers and industries concerned that such marks would be used.
If these four suggestions were adopted, the B.S.I would need to launch a big publicity campaign to get over to the public that all goods not bearing these marks were not worth having. To do that, the B.S.I, would need a further grant from the Government and, in common with other hon. Members, I have asked for that grant. The last comment we had from the Government was that it was being considered. That was following a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and, if he is in any doubt on the point, I can give him the column number in HANSARD.
I believe that a real guarantee of quality or performance for the consumer should be prepared without any reference to minimum specifications. Any reputable manufacturer who sets a standard of guarantee to the public sets it in relation to the properties which are essential for the satisfactory end-use of the article in question. I would tell the President, if he does not already know, that the reason why the rayon and cotton industries have left him in such a mess and have fallen down on the guarantees which he gave on their behalf lies in this very fact— that they thought in terms of absolute minima.
I do not know whether he is prepared to admit it, but I can tell him what the trade says; for the trade says, that we did not get these kite marks on rayon and cotton cloths, which he pledged himself that we should have, simply because the quality suggested was so low that to use the kite mark would have been an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Acts. I do not know whether the President would care to contradict that. I will give way if he wishes to do so. As he makes no comment, presumably I am correct.
I have talked this matter over with a good many housewives of the low income group. Consumers will tell the Government that they would much rather pay a little more per yard for material which is worth having than throw away their money on rubbish. That is why we want a higher quality standard.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir I. Orr-Ewing) referred to the women's committee. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary might refer later to the women's committee of the B.S.I. I know this Committee; I have had the pleasure of meeting its members and I believe they have done a grand job. But the Committee needs technical assistance. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary, if he does not know, that the women's committee has sent many excellent recommendations forward suggesting that the standards have been too low, and every time the other committees have replied, "We cannot make the quality better as you suggest. It just cannot be done." Because there is no technical representation on the women's committee, its members can make no reply to that. I have

stressed that fact before and have asked the President to do something about it.
As 1st February, 1954, drew nearer, it was obvious to us all—consumers and industry alike—that, because the British Standards Institution was not authorised to obtain high enough quality standards, the Merchandise Marks Act would have to be enforced; and the question which clearly arose was, who was going to enforce it?
I want to quote to the Committee three short sentences from my letter in "The Times" of 28th January. First I wrote:
During the debate on the Second Reading I welcomed the Government's action in strengthening the Act. I still do, but I think they have not gone far enough.
The second point which I made was:
1st February will see an improvement in the machinery for strengthening honest trade descriptions; but who is going to work that machinery? Private persons certainly have not the money to enter upon legal battles, and neither do I think this is a job for the ordinary shopper. On the other hand, trade associations have not unlimited funds… Surely it is the task of the Board of Trade, having produced the machinery, to guarantee its effective working.
In that letter I mentioned trade associations. I have had experience of only one, but I am sure it is one of many which are doing a first-class job in this country. I come now to the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has been mentioned. [HON. members: "Oh!"] I would only say, for the amusement and edification of the Committee, that the secretary of the Retail Trading Standards Association has been approached by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee for material in this debate, so that I hope everybody will agree with me at the end of the day.
I have mentioned this Association many times in the House, and I think that consumers and reputable traders owe it a debt of gratitude. I hope that at some time the President will be generous enough to admit that, had it not been for the work of this Association and its secretary, Mr. Roger Diplock, even more people would have been defrauded because of the incompetence of the Government. I am sorry that the right hon Gentleman is not generous enough to admit this. It happens to be true.
From 1950 to the end of 1953, the Retail Trading Standards Association took 16 cases to court on behalf of the


consumer. It won every one of the 16, and in every case costs were awarded to the Association, yet on those 16 cases alone the Association lost £1,070. I submit to the Committee and the public that it is fantastic that, when a trading association takes cases to court to safeguard shoppers and reputable manufacturers, it should have to pay more than £1,000 for doing so. That is just crazy.
It becomes even more fantastic when the secretary of that Association says that the number of such cases, far from being 16, could well have been 1,500 but for the effort and cost of undertaking such prosecutions. I underline for the right hon. Gentleman in all sincerity, quite apart from the cost of prosecutions, that every one of those cases could have been eliminated if informative labelling had been used. I have a list of the 16 cases. He may have it and check it if he wishes.
What is the attitude of the Government? The Government—not only this Government—have brought six cases in 15 years. This Government have not been in power all that time; we were in power for part of it. But I do not care who was in power; six cases in 15 years was far too few, and if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "You were in power part of the time," what are they doing about it now? On 11th February the President told us:
We can best rely on the responsibility of manufacturers in general, and on the good sense of the public in exercising free choice in a competitive market, to maintain quality." — [official report, 11th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 1334.]
I see that the President nods his head. All I can say is that in all the cases taken to court none of that seemed to work.
We have the other suggestion from the President, that the consumer who buys a faulty pair of stockings may go to her solicitor about it. I will come to that point later, but it was a most unfortunate agreement by the right hon. Gentleman with one of his hon. Friends. Bearing that in mind, there are two questions which I want to ask. I expect that the right hon. Gentleman is very glad that he has not to reply tonight, but perhaps he will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to them. These are the two questions. Who will protect the consumer under this new Act, and who will safeguard consumer standards?
As I see it, the Government have three choices. They can give more power to the British Standards Institution to safeguard consumer standards, and this they have refused to do. They can authorise reputable trade associations, such as the R.T.S.A., to bring cases to court where this is deemed desirable, and they can guarantee to pay the costs of the prosecutions. We on this side of the House asked for this when the Bill was going through the House. This the Government have refused to do. If they will not give the B.S.I, more power and authority and authorise the trade associations to bring the cases, it only leaves one thing —the Government will have to do it themselves.
I come now to ask what the Government intend to do. I do not wish to leave any loophole tonight in the reply. [An hon. member: "The hon. Lady will not leave time for it."] I am sorry, but I have waited a long time for this moment. I am proposing tonight to give the right hon. Gentleman, or his Parliamentary Secretary, every opportunity to decry me or to say that I am wrong. I am taking three examples which I have already taken in this House and on which the Government have had all the details available. I am prepared to stand by the answer, but I want a detailed reply. As moving an official Motion, I think that I am entitled to it.
I have tried at Question time, over some considerable period, to get a satisfactory answer from the President of the Board of Trade on this matter of goods which were not up to standard. That has been my only opportunity as a back bencher. I know that it is the job of any Minister, when back benchers are a nuisance, to ride them off if he can. Of course he did. I think that I am making an under-statement when I say that these points have hardly been treated with the serious consideration that they merit. I say that, not because they come from me, but because they affect people who have spent money on buying these goods in the shops. As the House knows, I have always been very ready to admit when I have made a mistake, and I am prepared to do so again, but on these three points I do not think that I have made a mistake. I think that the Government have made a mistake. It is a fair challenge, and I want an answer.
On 2nd March and 8th April this year, I raised in this House the question of gloves made by the Supreme Supply Company. I showed the President the advertisements, and he will find in hansard, 2nd March, 1954, the details I am going to raise, so I need not weary the House with these details. The President in his reply of 8th April—as it is nearly always the same reply, I am sure that he will remember it—told me that his officers had bought some of the gloves, but that:
They were found to comply substantially with the descriptions in the advertisement.…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 497,]
He also said that he was advised that there was nothing false or misleading in any material respect, and there were no grounds for instituting proceedings. In fact, the President's investigators had bought a pair of gloves which were very much like the pair of gloves I got.
This morning I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary. When I read it my heart leapt for joy. I thought that it was too good to be true. I am not being rude to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I could not believe that he would deliver himself right into my hands on the day of the debate.
In a letter dated 5th May, he said:
We have now received the examiner's report on the further pair of gauntlets. Their findings on these are the same as on the other pair. The gauntlets are being returned to you,
I take it that the pair of gloves which the Parliamentary Secretary has now had examined, and which I gave to him, are exactly the same as the pair of gloves which his investigators bought; because the same results have been achieved.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): There may be a difference of size, because there are various sizes, but on the findings as to the material they were the same, and, needless to say, I gave that answer precisely because I thought that the hon. Lady would like to have it.

Miss Burton: I did, and I loved it. I did not raise the matter of size under the Merchandise Marks Act. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary has been given this report. I know that he does not go about examining gloves. The gloves in respect of which I have had

this letter were not gloves which I bought or which even the wicked R.T.S.A. bought and gave a description about. The gloves I sent to the Parliamentary Secretary had a report made on them by the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association on 15th February. Their report includes the following statement:
The palm and back are made from hide (split to the required thickness) and the gauntlet made from sheepskin.
Does not the Parliamentary Secretary, or his President, or. the Board of Trade realise even now that it is fundamental to the prosperity of the cow-hide industry that sheepskin should not be sold as hide? Have they not got round to that yet? They seem mystified. I think that the President has not understood the point of the leather manufacturers' association's statement.

Mr. Strauss: Has it occurred to the hon. Lady that possibly we have had them examined by people equally distinguished?

Miss Burton: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should say whether he agrees with the British leather people or not. That is his fights not mine. I do not think that the President realised in his answer what a blow he had dealt at that industry when he said that to describe sheepskin as hide, as in the case of these gloves—the gloves which his officials have got—was not false or misleading in any respect. Is he telling the House that the report made by the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association concerning their own industry is just incorrect?
When he comes to reply, would he let me know on which of these six points I was wrong? I am sorry that the President seems to think this such a joke. That has been the trouble all the way through. I am making serious allegations. I do not think that this is a joke. If the President bought low grade goods because he could not afford others, he would not think it is a joke either. He will perhaps consent to be a little serious to the problems of the consumers, even if he does not think a lot about me‐I can bear that. May I go on about the gloves?
I want an answer to these six points. The Leather Manufacturers' Research Association have told us that the gauntlet


part of the gloves was not really hide but sheepskin. May I know if that is true? The second point is that the hide of these. gloves could not in any circumstances be described as super-quality. That is in the advertisement which I have here. Further, the glove is not fur-lined throughout because the thumb is not fur-lined. The length measurement of the glove is 14 inches and not 15 inches. He may not think that is a very important matter, but the measurement on the back said 15, and it is 14. The width is 11 and not 12, and lastly—and I think this serious—this type of glove can be bought anywhere for about 40s. or 50s. It is quite inaccurate to say that the value is £4. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say which of these is incorrect? If they are not incorrect, I say to the President, with the backing of the Association, that there was infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act on several of those points.
My next example—I am taking only three, and as quickly as I can—is the matter of pillows. It is very serious if the public are to buy goods which are falsely described and the President, every time that the matter is referred to him, says that he cannot do anything about it. Either the President is wrong, or the law is wrong, and we on this side want the matter investigated.
I first told the President about these pillows made by the Downland Bedding Co., on 1st April. After raising the matter in the House, I had a letter from a lady in Cheshire, and I sent it to the President. I shall not mention the name or address because, as will be remembered, there were unfortunate consequences when names and addresses in a letter were given from this side of the House not so long ago.
I quote only one paragraph from the letter which I sent to the President:
If the President of the Board of Trade requires proof of these statements you made,"—
that is, about the Downland pillows—
I can supply it. I recently bought a pillow labelled as having been made by this firm. If any of the feathers in it are not more suitable for decorating a hat, I am prepared to eat the same hat. I will give a representative of the Board of Trade permission to open the pillow and examine the contents for himself.
I need hardly say that the right hon. Gentleman did not think that was worth

bothering with. Here was somebody who had bought a pillow, who would give the President proof of buying, and who thought she had been swindled, but the right hon. Gentleman was not even prepared to bother about it.
The manufacturer of the pillows wrote to me—I wish to be fair about this. He said in his letter that he had no intention of defrauding, and he continued:
I am aware that this is no defence, but I do suggest it was a borderline case of infringement.
To prove that to me, he enclosed the leaflet which he sends out to the trade. That leaflet says that the filling was "washed poultry feathers." That was quite honest. If that is an honest leaflet, why was not that one used to sell the pillows to the public? It was not the leaflet saying that the pillows were filled with washed poultry feathers that was sent to the President. He was sent the one that I sent him, saying that "' Soft, resilient,' says Downy Duck." [Laughter.] I am glad the right Gentleman regards it as humorous, when the housewives get at him he will not think it is so funny.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply told me that I know nothing about this matter and that it is simply a publicity puff. These opinions, however, come not from me. The filling of the pillow was examined by one of the leading experts in the trade, and was reported upon as being old poultry feathers. Therefore, it is not only the Leather Association who have expressed this kind of opinion. We now find that the experts in connection with the bedding trade also think that the Board of Trade is wrong.
The same company is making another pillow. It is called the
'Downland' Curlew full size down pillow.
I do not know whether the President from his experience will say that a "full size down pillow" on a leaflet is a publicity puff or a statement of fact, but that is what it says. The filling material of this pillow was examined by still another committee, an expert committee of the National Feather Purifiers Association. [Laughter.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is amused. I would regard it as serious if I were at the Board of Trade. The National Feather Purifiers Association is


affiliated to the National Bedding Federation, both of which are represented on the committee responsible for preparing the British Standards glossary of terms applicable to filling. The advice given by this committee on the Curlew pillow was that it could not correctly be described as down.
Have the Board of Trade, as, I believe, is the case, been given information about this Curlew pillow and about the findings of the expert committee, who say that it is not correctly stated to be made of down? I should like to know whether the matter is being investigated. If not, what redress does the President of the Board of Trade think that people have who buy a Downland pillow or a Curlew pillow, thinking in all honesty that these pillows are what they are described to be, and then find that they are not?
The last example concerns the case of the Masnage bedspread, which I raised in a Question to the President on 8th April. I prepared my notes on this before Tuesday of this week, and underneath a copy of the President's reply I wrote:
This is one of the most disgraceful and incompetent replies of any.
The President has been in the House longer than I have, but I always understood it was the custom here that if one made a mistake one said so. I always understood it was common courtesy that if one said something which was not true about somebody outside the House, one admitted it, as the President, I think, will agree.
On 8th April, following a letter which I had sent to the President giving details of this transaction, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member referred me for further information to an organisation known as the Retail Trading Standards Association, but it was unable to give any assistance in the matter. I did, however, obtain enough evidence from other inquiries to satisfy me that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution."— [official report, 8th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 500.]

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): indicated assent.

Miss Burton: The President nods his head; he remembers that. At the time, I told him that he had been misinformed

and that the Association had given him every assistance. Following that, the Secretary of the Association wrote to the President and sent me a copy of the letter, because it had arisen in connection with a Question of mine. On Tuesday of this week, when I asked him about this, the President inferred that the matter was nothing to do with me, that he had not made a mistake, and that he had written to the Secretary of the Association. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would have been more courteous if he had got up and said, as he said in his letter, that there seemed to be a conflict of evidence and had invited further discussion on the matter? Would that not have been a little more polite than telling me that nothing was the matter?
The investigator from the Board of Trade went to the offices. He was given full access to the correspondence and made copious notes from it. He asked whether he might take the letter away to the Board of Trade, but the Secretary of the R.T.S.A. declined and said that as he had made the allegations he would keep the letters but would give them to the Board of Trade if the Department was prepared to issue a summons.
As I informed the right hon. Gentleman in a letter, the agents were Afco Agencies Ltd. They told us in the correspondence that some clients of theirs had asked for the wrong labelling of these bedspreads, quite flagrantly, and that the agents' customers who made the request were Messrs. A. L. Allen & Co., of 109–111, Newington Causeway, London, S.E.I. That information was given to the right hon. Gentleman's investigator, together with the address of the stores where he could buy two of the bedspreads. The President, however, says that he received no help and had no case to bring. I should like him to answer what I have said.
Finally—and I know the House will be very glad I am coming to an end— I believe that tonight I have shown four things. The first is that the guarantees given by this President of the Board of Trade are just not worth having. The guarantees I aim quoting are guarantees on behalf of the rayon industry, the cotton industry and children's wear. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Board of Trade will clear the President's name when he comes to reply.
Secondly, the British Standards Institution has neither the authority nor the power to raise the quality of the standard of the kite mark. Thirdly, a minority of traders and manufacturers are taking advantage of the Government's incompetence and disinclination to act to debase the quality of goods supplied to the public. Fourthly, the Board of Trade and the Minister responsible do not realise the gravity of the situation or are not prepared to do anything about it.
We on this side of the House believe that the kite mark should be of a much higher standard. I myself believe it should be compulsory. Secondly, I think we should have informative labelling by percentage of fibre content. Thirdly, the President must realise that the minority of manufacturers and traders who do this sort of thing should be prosecuted and the cost borne by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade legally has the power to do it. It is empowered to take action under the Merchandise Marks Acts of 1891 and 1894. It is in the interests of the country that the standard of goods should be high; it is in the interests of the consumer that they should get the best value for their money; and it is in the interests of the trade that any unscrupulous people should be exposed.
Before I sit down, I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to note the article in the "Drapers Record" of 10th April from which I have already quoted one or two passages. The article in question is headed: "B.O.T. must back this Act" with the word "must" underlined. This is what it says:
During a recent discussion the president expressed ' very full agreement' with the view that people who think they have cause for complaint should go to a solicitor.
What an instruction to consumers in general, including all those who cannot afford to consult a lawyer, let alone pay him to compile the necessary evidence and, if need be, launch a prosecution.…
So far, Mr. Thorneycroft appears to have been masterly at evading responsibility under this Act. But both traders and the public expect his department to take action and not leave the policing to private enterprise.
Unless this legislation is rigorously enforced, its provisions will soon be ignored by the dishonest. We regard it as the duty of the Board of Trade to protect consumers and traders in this matter.

On this side of the House we believe that the Board of Trade under this Government and under this Minister has neither the experience nor the ability to carry out its undertakings with regard to the Merchandise Marks Act. Prompt actions are necessary and speedy decisions with a minimum of red tape. At present the Board of Trade is so hidebound by red tape that it is incapable of using the Acts. Most Members in all parts of the House will join in protecting honest traders, and I hope, therefore, that this Motion will be approved

8.4 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to second the Motion.
I will take up one or two points which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has raised, and one of them is the question of information. Personally, I do not see why this information cannot be given to the public. As a manufacturer myself, I have always given the information to a subsequent processor as to what is in the cloth when it is made. If it is important for a manufacturer to give information to his finisher as to what the cloth is composed of, then surely it is as important that the person who buys that piece of cloth should have information so that when it is cleaned, washed or whatever is done to it, the necessary knowledge should be available.
I should like very briefly to mention wool and nylon in connection with mixed fibres. My hon. Friend has been rather misinformed about this. Ten per cent, of nylon added to light wool dress fabrics increases its strength by up to 20 per cent. That has been the experience of the trade after many tests. It is also my personal experience, and I should not like it to go out to the public that nylon does not increase the strength of wool cloth when it is put in even in small mixtures. Ten per cent, does make an enormous difference.
If a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler or to a maker-up, and does not say that the cloth contains nylon, when it comes in and is examined and analysed it may be that the manufacturer will be subject to damages because he introduced an inferior thing. It cuts both ways. It cannot be said, simply because there is a popular view of nylon, that fundamentally


it can improve all woollen cloth to that extent.
Having said that, I want to make a few remarks about the position of marking and standards. The Utility scheme finished in 1952. We know its history and I would put it as short as I possibly can. The country was informed that there would be a voluntary scheme brought out to provide a British Standards Institution standard of quality to preserve or to replace that in operation under the Utility scheme. It was agreed that some of the standards under the Utility scheme should be preserved if possible. There was to be a quick review, but there was also to be a longer term so that other standards could be worked out meanwhile.
I will give this to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Government, because I want to be perfectly fair before we divide the House. The market changed. It turned from a sellers' into a buyers' market. Seasonal purchasing began. No longer was it all one kind of trade. Fashions and decorations came into the picture. Colour and other fibres were introduced into the cloth because there was a revolt against the drabness which had been going on for many years. But that in itself is not a sufficient excuse to warrant the delay that has taken place.
The President of the Board of Trade knows that he has been let down badly. I would ask him to consider the reluctance of some branches of the industry to toe the line on this business, and 1 would ask him whether he is satisfied with the response which he has had from the cotton industry? We appreciate his difficulties, which vary from industry to industry according to how things are measured. It is not easy. The engineering industry is comparatively easy to deal with, yet ever since 1901, when the British Standards Institution began what has been gradually built up, all the standards have become married into all types of engineering. But they are dealing with an inert commodity. It can be measured, worked and weighed meticulously, but even so it is very difficult to bring the scheme into operation.
My hon. Friend was not criticising the whole gamut of consumer goods manufacturers; far from it. We on this side

of the House are as proud as any hon. Member opposite about the fine quality of British consumer goods. What we are after is the defaulter, the man who is degrading standards. We are all after him, if we are any good.
The hon. Lady was perfectly correct when she put quality before price. What happens in a sellers' market? When one goes into a place to sell cloth, the purchaser is disposed against it from the start if the price is wrong, and it must come down and down. The manufacturer is driven all along the line either to alter specifications or to substitute.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Has not the D scheme a great deal to do with that, and also the fact that Purchase Tax starts when the item is over 4s. 3d. per yard?

Mr. Rhodes: No, not to any great extent. It comes in in fabrics which are designed for the export trade. It has a bearing on the matter; I do not deny that. I was speaking of the difficulty of arriving at standards. I can illustrate the point simply by referring to engineering. During the war it was necessary to standardise various pieces of equipment. I recall seeing an account describing the steps taken to standardise parts for a concrete mixer. The experts set about the job with a will. It was war-time and they wanted to economise on metals, time and so on. Eventually they got a standard out, but, with the best will in the world and with the best brains on the job, it took 12 months.
It may be said that that would not have happened in Germany, Switzerland or America, but would it not? Not many days after the standards were approved in this country, information came through the Secret Service, through Lisbon. Among it, as a quaint coincidence, was the statement that the concrete mixer which the Germans had been working on had occupied slightly over 12 months before a decision had been made.
If full co-operation had been received by the President of the Board of Trade, or if he had insisted on it, I do not see why there should not have been a glossary of terms for the cotton industry, followed by marking on a really first-class basis for the domestic textile section of the industry. I do not see why a kite mark should not be introduced at an


early date for all domestic textiles. The best of the old Utility specifications could have qualified for the kite mark.
In case anybody looks down his nose at the old Utility specifications, the answer I give is to tell him to look down the list of advertisers in the "Manchester Guardian" in the column headed "Business Opportunities." I doubt whether a week goes by without someone advertising for one of the old Utility specifications. People have great confidence in the Utility specifications that we had.
A great deal of opposition has come from the branded goods section of the industry. We know that, and we know the difficulties that the British Standards Institution has been working under. The right hon. Gentleman will have to take the matter in hand and exercise his authority before very long. The industry will dilly-dally unless the President of the Board of Trade says, "Yes, this is what we must do." They have an argument. They say that they have gone to all this expense for years to market and sustain a branded line; but it can be overdone. There are not really many branded goods which are worth much. There are a good many that can claim it, but there are not really many that can justify it.
What are they afraid of? They are afraid of a mark being put on to similar types of cloth with which cutomers will be satisfied. In that case the customer will say, "All right. If I can get the kite mark, or whatever it is that the British Standards Institution applies to a good quality article, the branded article is not necessary now." Surely, they are arguing against themselves. If we relate the point to another industry or trade, I can mention Mappin and Webb. They, to mention but one name, would never be under suspicion for their type of goods. Theirs is a world-wide name, yet it is true to say that every piece of silver sold by Mappin and Webb has a hallmark on it. Why cannot it be exactly the same with some of the consumer goods?
I should like to deal with the question of the glossary of terms. The British Standards Institution and the trade have done a good job. The wool trade has responded admirably to the appeal of two years ago. It has done its stuff. It is always on the job. It recognises that if

it can bring up the standards of the poorest there is more opportunity for better workmanship and craftsmanship.
The glossary, admirable thought it may be, needs teeth. Before very long the President of the Board of Trade should come to the House with legislation to support it, otherwise we shall have a real mess. We shall not get much benefit from all the labour and trouble that has gone into the preparation of the glossary. In the glossary there should be provided standards for all the cloths we know that can be given standards. They could be certified, but before we can certify we must legalise the glossary.
It is open to dispute, for example, whether a cloth made out of fibres spun on the worsted system can be called worsted, irrespective of the fact that it might be made out of rayon. According to common usage of the word, worsted cloth has always been held to be cloth which is wool throughout, spun on the worsted system, but there is an argument about this, and this is where the Board of Trade should try to clear up die matter. Can one conceive of a situation in which rayon at 24d. a lb. can be called worsted, when real worsted itself is made from tops which may cost 140d. per lb.? I mentioned this to the Parliamentary Secretary some weeks ago, and this is what he replied:
I am afraid that I cannot give you a clear-cut answer to the question you asked. 'Worsted' can relate to a process of manufacture, and it may well be that as between two traders it might properly be used in this sense; but that in relation to the public it might mislead the purchaser into supposing that the article was of wool. Whether its use constitutes a false or misleading description in any particular case can only be determined by the court. What is certain is that the 1953 Act has not made legal anything that was illegal before.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South when she says that power should be exercised by the Board of Trade to bring prosecutions. Unless more interest is taken in this subject by the Board of Trade, it may be a long time before this matter is cleared up, and confusion, delay and hindrance will be caused to thousands of people engaged in the manufacturing industry.
I do not think that legislation as such is altogether the perfect answer. I think it would be a good thing from everybody's point of view, for the economy of


the country and to enable the young housewife to make her own money spin out better, that in the last year at school information and demonstrations should be given to girls, and perhaps to boys, about the integral difference between the varieties of cloth which they will have to buy when they reach a responsible position.
We have done something on these lines in our schools in the area where I live, and, as a result, and because the people engaged in the manufacture of cloth know something about the subject, we have this situation. In the town adjoining mine, a lot of apparel is sold for schoolboys and schoolgirls. It is no coincidence that in that town a different technique has to be adopted from that which is adopted in my district, because in the other town the people are more critical judges of cloth. There should be an effort by the Board of Trade to get the co-operation of the Ministry of Education in this very elementary precaution before children leave school.
The greatest amount of essential information, in the simplest terms, should be available to customers, at the same time leaving the customers free to exercise their own tastes, to suit their own pockets in design, appearance and general suitability of the goods they buy. Our remarks tonight are directed not at the majority of good manufacturers who have a pride in their jobs, but at those backsliders whom we all wish to see eradicated.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I beg to move, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the improving standard of goods now available to the public in competive conditions welcomes the increased protection afforded to consumers by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953.
I have no doubt whatever that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to achieve the same object. I am bound to say that I feel more in sympathy with the speech made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), whose approach to this problem seemed to me more constructive than that of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). I felt that the hon. Lady's

approach to the subject was very severe and critical, and I thought that some of her observations about the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary bordered on the offensive, if I may say so.
Be that as it may, I want to make quite clear that in moving this Amendment I shall not in any way traverse all the arguments which the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have put forward. I want to indicate rather a different approach and a different attitude which hon. Members on this side of the House take to this problem. I think it is fair to say that, on the whole, hon. Members on these benches feel that it is less possible to do things by an Act of Parliament, and in fact the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the same point just now. We feel that less can be done by Act of Parliament and by intervention by the President of the Board of Trade than some hon. Members opposite seem to feel.
The terms of the Motion seem to me to suggest that the Merchandise Marks Acts are not being effectively enforced by the present Administration, and I think that the tenor of the hon. Lady's speech unquestionably bears that out. The hon. Lady made a long and extremely fully documented speech, and I have not the slightest doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who I believe is to reply, will deal with all the detailed matters about which she spoke, and about which, having no knowledge of them, I naturally cannot make any comment upon. My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is very capable of defending himself, and I am sure he will deal most effectively with the various charges which the hon. Lady made.
I wish to say a few words on the point that it was never the intention of Parliament, when these Merchandise Marks Acts were first brought forward—this goes back some 60 or 70 years, I think—that they should only be enforced by Government action. That was never the intention. They are there for everyone to use. I should not like to discourage private persons or private organisations from making use of them at any time. Prosecutions have often been brought by local authorities and are frequently brought by organisations, trading associations and trading bodies.
I do not, however, share the hon. Lady's view that the President of the Board of Trade should give carte blanche to every such body by saying that he will pay the whole of the expenses in any case in which such a body chooses to engage. There would be no limit to the expensive counsel who might be engaged, or to the expenses which might be incurred. That suggestion is not one which those Members of the House who have experience of legal affairs would be prepared to support. Nor would I have thought it right for the Board of Trade to prosecute in a case which was merely for the protection or defence of some trade mark of some manufacturer. That is something for the manufacturer concerned to deal with, and a matter in which he should prosecute.
There is, however, the question—and this is what the hon. Lady had much in mind—of taking action in cases in which false or misleading descriptions are used, not just for the purpose of cashing in on somebody else's trade mark, but simply to persuade the public that they are getting something very much better than they are, in fact, getting. I find that on 2nd March the President of the Board of Trade said:
If any trade association, or if any hon. Member, brings to my attention, or to the attention of the Board of Trade, cases where, in their view the Merchandise Marks Act has been broken we shall certainly look into the matter and, if necessary, institute proceedings." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1954: Vol. 524, c. 992.]
The hon. Lady had a lot to say about this. I am quite certain we shall hear that the Board of Trade is willing to prosecute when adequate evidence is produced, but allegations are often made which are not supported. Allegations are frequently made both here and out of doors, and they have to be sustained before the President of the Board of Trade can be expected to support action. I agree that there should be readiness to take action, always readiness to investigate and readiness to prosecute on appropriate occasions. I do not know anything about the gauntlets to which the hon. Lady referred, but the Government spokesman will no doubt deal with them and the other cases which have been referred to.
It is clear that there is a great deal of common ground between both sides

of the House; I have no doubt whatever about that. We on this side of the House are just as anxious7mdah;at least I am, and I am sure my hon. Friends are—to protect consumers as are Members opposite. I am perfectly willing, anxious and ready that offenders, if they can be, and are, caught, should be properly punished. We must do all we can to prevent and check unscrupulous trading of whatever kind.
Fortunately, I was very glad that no suggestion has been made in the debate that any large amount of such trading is going on in this country. The Opposition Motion refers to "a minority," and I hope and believe that it is a very small minority. I share the views that have been expressed that the greater part of the trade of the country is conducted by highly reputable people, that employers are men who have the highest possible regard for the standards of the businesses which they are conducting and that the workpeople are anxious to turn out the best products possible. All of us naturally believe that.
There is, however, a minority who no doubt must be dealt with, although we must always beware in these debates of crying stinking fish, because the emphasis which goes out from a debate may not quite emphasise the good character which speakers have given to the vast majority of manufacturers, and may rather tend to emphasise, through the medium of the newspapers and wireless, the criticised exceptions such as those which the hon. Lady mentioned, if in fact those cases were proved. More attention is drawn to those cases than to the 99 just persons who continue to manufacture to the best of their ability.
In my view, there is no doubt that no Act of Parliament can altogether protect the buying public. It is very important that the buyer should realize—as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said— that it is his or her duty, and that it is prudent, to exercise judgment and intelligence in buying. The hon. Lady may say, "How can anyone tell what is in this or that?" I agree, but the best safeguard for buyers is to look at what they are buying. The other great safeguard is to change the supplier if in fact the buyer finds that the goods are not satisfactory. Buyers should take their custom elsewhere if they are not satisfied.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Is it not a fact that many people have spent large sums of money which they could ill afford on unsatisfactory articles, and that the community, by an occasional prosecution, could stop that kind of thing?

Mr. Assheton: I am not against the community doing some good by a few prosecutions, but in the vast quantity of everyday purchases which the women of this country make week by week the important thing is for them to be as careful as possible in making those purchases, and, if they do not get satisfaction, to change their supplier.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Non sense.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Gentleman can say that it is nonsense, but that is what I think.

Mr. Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman is dreaming; he does not understand.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member says that he does not think that I understand, and perhaps I think that he does not understand everything.

Mr. John Edwards (Brighouse and Spenborough): Will the right hon. Gentleman —?

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid that there is so little time that I cannot give way. The hon. Member for Coventry, South and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke for an hour and a half. I shall not speak for very long, and then probably an hon. Member opposite will be called, and that will not give hon. members on this side of the House very long in which to present our case.

Mr. Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman could have answered my right hon. Friend's question by now.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, but I think this is an important question. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that one of his ordinary constituents in Blackburn, West is in any position, when she goes to buy a mattress, to say whether that mattress is made of good or bad quality material?

Mr. Assheton: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are plenty of honest shopkeepers in Blackburn who would give good advice to their customers. My

experience confirms that; and the experience of many people, not rich people but people who are moderately well-off, is the same. If they deal with reliable people, they obtain reliable goods.
It is a libel on the employers and the workpeople of this country to suggest that a great quantity of shoddy goods is being produced. That has not been suggested tonight, and I am glad that it has not. Some shoddy goods are produced. We are ashamed that they are, and we want to prevent it—there is no doubt about that. But I do not think it unfair to say that a sellers' market and a high level of employment may tend to debase the quality of certain goods. I think that that is so, and I believe that all people who are interested in business would agree with me.
It is fair to say that a good deal has been done in recent years to improve standards, but the problem of devising satisfactory standards is full of technical difficulties, as anyone knows who is connected with industry. The fact is that the British Standards Institution bases all its work, as hon. Members know, on voluntary agreement. I think that progress is sometimes slow, but I am sure that it is right to base that work on voluntary agreement. I am sure that it would be wrong for the President of the Board of Trade to interfere.
There may be some disappointment that some marking schemes which have been formulated have not yet been adopted, and that there has been rather slow progress, particularly regarding certain cloths The failure to agree on marking schemes is partly due to a genuine fear that they may mislead rather than inform the consumer. I also believe that quite a genuine underestimate was made by the cotton industry of the technical and commercial difficulties involved in the general undertaking which they gave to the President of the Board of Trade in March, 1952, and which he passed on to this House. None the less, I believe that progress is being made. But we must take care to avoid undesirable rigidity, because that would inhibit progress in the development of new constructions and certainly in the use of new fibres, blends, and so on.
Of course, everyone should remember that cotton goes through the hands of spinners, weavers and finishers, and it is not always easy to ensure that the finished cloth complies exactly with a given standard. All sorts of difficulties arise throughout that very long process, as I am sure all hon. Members who are interested in this section of the trade appreciate.
For instance, the different dyes used in some of the multi-coloured prints cannot all be expected to have just the same degree of fastness to light. If we set too high a standard, we shall restrict quite unreasonably the range of colours which will very seriously affect our sales overseas. We must remember that our export trade is something that has to be looked after very carefully in the textile industry.
I should like to see more progress, and am not unhopeful of seeing it. I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about the difficulties of suppliers of branded goods is an important one. It has not been solved and we must help to solve it.
I think that progress is also being made in another direction. Some time ago, I was worried at the considerable amount of inferior furniture that was about. I thought that it was a disgrace. But I am glad to say that, as a result of public opinion being aroused in the matter and of standards being adopted, things are now very much better. I am told that half the output of furniture now comes from firms licensed to use the kite mark. That is a very encouraging improvement and something for which we as citizens and as Members of Parliament can take credit. These things do not move very fast.
I began by saying that there was no difference between both sides of the House as to where we wanted to go. The only difference is really a matter of approach. We on this side of the House are a great deal more convinced than hon. Members opposite that the best guarantee of all to the consumer is provided by competition. I am not ruling out competition from imported goods in this connection, because that is the best guarantee of all from the point of view of the consumer. I am glad to say that competition is something which has increased very much indeed since this

Administration took office, and I believe that it is a very good thing for the country.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I make no apology for the fact that I propose for a few minutes to take the attention of the House away from purely textiles and allied products to a quite different field. I feel fortified in doing so by the fact that I am one of the lucky people in the sense that I have a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that he is considering a prosecution. I feel that we cannot let this opportunity go by because tonight we may get some indication that someone is to be prosecuted under the Merchandise Marks Act as a result of a matter having been raised in this Chamber in recent weeks.
I shall refer not to textiles but to one or two pseudo-medical products in respect of which it is high time that some legal action was taken. Some weeks ago I raised in the House the subject of a product which, I understand, has been selling for some time as a slimming aid, called "Slimswift" When I brought this to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, I think he genuinely felt that here was a very blatant case of fraud and exploitation, of false claims and false descriptions. I understood from the way in which he replied to my questions that he felt that here was a chance of bringing somebody to book.
The product is a very interesting fraud. This is how it works. People responding to advertisements are told that if they pay £1 or 25s.—at the moment anyway it is £1—they will be given a product which will enable them to slim. With the present slimming craze among women, I should not be surprised if the product has been selling merrily.
The treatment is divided into two parts. One part apparently consists of bathing in a solution made from a certain preparation which is sent to the client as part of the treatment. The person has to bath in the solution about twice a week. There is a subsidiary part of the treatment which amounts to a diet. It is a simple diet, the sort of thing that anyone could write out for himself. It is worth something in that it is good advice, but not more than a few pence.
The major part of the treatment relates to a magic powder, in a solution of which


Women are supposed to bath twice a week. The powder has been analysed, and it turns out to be a very simple substance. It consists, quite simply, of common salt and Epsom salts in fairly equal proportions, and nothing else at all. When the analyst reported upon the product he remarked that the women would do much better to drink the solution than bath in it for the purposes of getting slim.
It may be said that that is all right— that the treatment produces a psychological feeling that one can slim as a result of bathing, and this makes people keep to the diet, and that that is what does the trick, and that that is really what people pay their £1 for. But that is not the claim which is made. This is where there is a real contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act. The literature distributed to these people is medical nonsense. It says that the substance is based on some finding by an eminent specialist who:
…discovered that obesity is largely due to the failure"…to dissolve and eliminate certain waste"…substances"…from the body and skin.
It says that the cause of being fat is that the pores of one's skin are not working to eliminate the 2–3 stone that one is overweight. That is nonsense.
The fraud consists of the fact that the literature does not refer to diet but mentions the magic powder which is supposed to have the effect claimed. One is supposed to:
…lie in the 'bath, quietly relaxed, while SLIMSWTFT does its work by stimulating the pores of your skin to active elimination of fat-forming products.
I have never heard such nonsense. Clearly, neither had the President of the Board of Trade, because he promised me that if I could find someone who had bathed in the solution or drunk it, he would consider prosecution. His words were so strong that I understood that he only wanted evidence and then he could go ahead. What I want to know is what has happened since.
I personally took along a relative, suitably clothed in a fur coat twice the size she required, so that she looked really fat, and we pretended that we wanted to buy this stuff. We went along to where it is made, which is a four-roomed flat in Brighton, and she rang

the front door bell. After a lot of scurrying upstairs and a few heads had appeared over the banisters, she was told that since presumably my relative looked fat enough she could be sold the preparation, and that if we would pay £1 we would get the magic powder.
Many other people have done the same thing, and I can produce plenty of letters from people who have been caught by this swindle. It is easy to get evidence from people who have bought it, and have bathed in it or drunk it or whatever is supposed to be the best way of using it, but we still have no idea that the President of the Board of Trade is taking any action about it. Indeed, when I put a further Question to him several weeks later, he was still investigating. In the meantime, I have done all my investigating, and could have given the right hon. Gentleman all the evidence that he needs. What is happening? Why is there no proper investigation? Why does he not take immediate action?
There is one further point about this swindle which is worth mentioning. There is a money-back guarantee, and the point about it is a simple one. The purchaser does not get her money back unless she has had a chemist to weigh her at each stage of the six weeks' treatment, so that, at the end of that time, he can certify that she has not lost weight. Of course, no woman who is foolish enough to send for this rubbish feels sufficiently confident or sufficiently willing to advertise what she is doing to go to a chemist all the way through the treatment. Of course, at the end of it, she finds that she has only been swindled and has no chance under the terms of the guarantee of getting her money back.
While I am on the subject, let me also say that this is only an example of many more cases which have reached me since I took this matter up. There is, in fact, at the moment, some admirable work being done by newspapers, which are doing the work of the President of the Board of Trade under the Merchandise Marks Act for him. For instance, the "Sunday Pictorial" "John Noble Service" employs a staff of some 17 people and is spending about £40,000 a year, mainly in exposing frauds like this. Good luck to them; I take off my hat to them, because it is a socially useful service.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary one case which was exposed by the "Sunday Pictorial" and which is ripe for prosecution under the new powers, which would show that the hon. Gentleman intends putting teeth into the use of the legislation that is now at his disposal. This substance is called Drake's Cider Vinegar, which is manufactured and widely advertised in Barnstaple, and has been exposed by the "Sunday Pictorial."
It is manufactured there by a man who claims to have after his name the initials M.S.F., P.M.O.S., A.B.B.A., and all that sort of rubbish, which is meaningless mumbo-jumbo. Nevertheless, this so called Cider Vinegar is guaranteed to cure anything from deafness to cracking fingernails, or from rheumatism, pregnancy, heart troubles, falling hair to diarrhœa. If I were to mention all the other things which it is supposed to cure, it would be on the verge of the indelicate, but the point about this product is that it is ordinary cider vinegar, which is sold, apparently, at something like four times the price—

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned that point. No doubt he would be interested to know that it was right hon. Gentlemen opposite who created all the debasement involved in this question. In 1950, the Lord Chief Justice gave a judgment regarding what was called— not imitation vinegar—but non-brewed vinegar. It was shown that labels were supplied by the Board of Trade and the description given was also authorised by the Board of Trade, and the Lord Chief Justice gave judgment to the effect that, in fact, the substance was not vinegar.

Mr. Chapman: That does not matter tuppence ha'penny to my case. This stuff is on sale at five times the price of ordinary cider vinegar. Supposedly it has had something done to it and will cure all these ills. The man's justification, as exposed by the "Sunday Pictorial," is:
My recent research into the medical uses of oscillating circuits, and certain knowledge I have acquired, have led me to improve on ordinary cider vinegar.
When analysed, this substance was found to be ordinary cider vinegar, yet it is selling at one reputable chemist's whom

I will not name tonight. Even a most famous chemist's shop was bamboozled into having it on sale, and had to withdraw it when the facts were pointed out.
I would bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a further case which has nothing to do with any newspaper but has reached me. It is typical of many on which there could be a good prosecution to bring order into the chaos of the patent-medicine racket. This preparation is most profusely advertised and is beautifully put out and, as one might half expect, it is one of the many cures for baldness. It is a racket in which people are today making thousands of pounds claiming to cure people who are supposed to be bald. I commend it not so much to the Parliamentary Secretary as to his hon. Friend behind him, the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. R. Fort) who is more in need of it.

Mr. Dodds: Does my hon. Friend know that one of the most successful salesmen for that preparation is bald himself?

Mr. Chapman: I am not surprised. It is made by a man called Pye, who has supposedly some consulting rooms in Blackpool. This preparation is a most amazing collection of stuff. The customer is supposed to get individual treatment for his symptoms of baldness. He does not get the same thing every day. He has something for Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, something for Tuesdays and Thursdays, and something for Saturdays only. In fact, if he is foolish enough to pay £3 he gets a whole set of bottles, ointments, and all sorts of things as part of the treatment.
This substance has been analysed and and we know precisely what it contains. We know precisely what people are paying £3 for, and it is a beautiful example that the Board of Trade could use for a prosecution. The orange lotion for Wednesdays and Saturdays contains mainly water, with a little borax and salicylic acid, and its value is ½d., according to a reputable city public analyst. The red lotion for Tuesdays and Thursdays contains ammonia, borax and glycerine and just a small amount of dye. The rest is water, and together its value is ½d., too. In the yellow lotion for use on Mondays and Fridays there is something called "resorcinol ester," which apparently is


worth 1½d. The special spirit wash, consisting of soft soap, green dye and methylated spirits, which is worth 5d., is second in value only to the ointment which, consisting entirely of vaseline containing green dye and perfume, has a value of 7½d. The total value of all this, for which people are paying pound;3, is 1s. 3d. That is the kind of thing sold with all this ballyhoo as a cure for baldness.
I make no apology for bringing this sort of thing forward. We have no other opportunity of mentioning these frauds and swindles. I salute the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) moved this Motion. It mainly relates to textiles, but I hope that some corner of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply will be devoted to these swindles—patent medicines, cures for every ill—which are going on day after day. They deceive many people. They exact many pounds from the public until those responsible are exposed, when they decamp, having made thousands of pounds. Why does not the Board of Trade have a good prosecution? Let it take the one I have given—Slimswift— and let us have a prosecution which will frighten a few more of them off the market.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I suppose that it is the difficulty which the Labour Party has in finding something which will bring its Members together that explains why we spend half a day on this son of thing. I wonder what contribution this debate has made to our export trade, how much richer Britain will be as a result of it, and whether anything will have been contributed to the wealth of the country out of which come all the good things we want for mankind? I wonder also at the zeal with which individuals seek out the extremely small number of cases in which there is fraud. Is there not from time to time fraud amongst all mankind? Is there any class or group or body of men amongst whom, every now and then, we do not find some fraud?

Sir Frederick Messer: Does the hon. Member justify it?

Sir I. Fraser: No, but I do not think we are necessarily doing the best thing in devoting so much time to looking for

it. I even think that by doing so we hold up British goods to obloquy, as one of my hon. Friend said, and tend to cry stinking fish about them.
The truth is that almost all our manufacturers are reputable persons. They want not only trade for today and this week but a continuous trade for themselves and, if they can leave anything to their children, for their children afterwards. They want to make and keep a good name. Numbers of them impose upon themselves voluntary standards of the highest order. Many of them band together in trade associations to provide voluntary methods of controlling their claims, advertising and standards. That is the case for the manufacturers.
The implication at least in the speech of the hon. Lady is that all our retailers are either fools or knaves. It is my opinion that again the overwhelming majority of our shopkeepers and retail factors want to keep the goodwill of their customers and do so by serving good quality stuff. They know perfectly well whether or not the article they are selling is good, even if the customer does not always know. It is better to trust them than to go on asking the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers to set up more machinery, institute more proceedings, and secure armies of officials to go round snooping and looking at this and that. The way for all our people— and not just one class—to get rich is to attend to making money rather than trying to catch out an odd person here and there.
I disagree with the attitude of mind reflected in the speeches of hon. Members opposite, except that made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) the last part of whose speech was very realistic. He said that we should teach the children standards of quality in textiles and household goods, and that is quite right, but the more we mollycoddle the people and act as a kind of grandmother to them by asking the Government to protect them, the less capable are they of judging for themselves. It will be a poor thing for them if they have to rely upon "Aunt Elaine" and "Grandfather Dalton" to do what ordinary shopkeepers ought to do for them.
There is a good old rule that the person who buys should take care when he buys


—caveat emptor—and the more we take away responsibility from the individual and put it on to the Government the more we raise taxation and multiply the number of officials, and the less we think about the serious business of making the nation's living. I deplore this debate. I even deplore the fact that the Government have spent so much time during the last two and a half years in introducing the Merchandise Marks Bill and passing it into law. I also deplore their intention to introduce the Food and Drugs Bill. It would be very much better if we had much less grandmotherly legislation.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: I am glad to be able to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I want to speak for a very short time on a very limited field, namely, the wool textile industry, especially in regard to blankets. The introduction of this new set of artificial fibres has created a vast number of problems, not only for consumers but for manufacturers in this industry. I would point out to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale that it is as much in the interests of the manufacturers as of the consumers that the good manufacturer should be protected from the debasement of standards which is the inevitable result of what is happening now.
There are two reasons why artificial fibres are being used in the textile industry. One, which is an entirely good reason, is that they provide a considerably wider range of materials than we have ever had before. But there is also the fact that most artificial fibres are very much cheaper than the natural fibres, especially raw wool. Natural fibre cotton is only about half the price of raw wool, and artificial silk is less than half the price. Before the war the housewife who wanted to buy an all-wool blanket could be sure of getting one, because if it consisted of a mixture of cotton and wool she could always tell.

Mr. Burden: Would not the hon. Member agree that the debasement which made it possible for a material containing only 15 per cent, wool and 85 per cent, cotton to be described as wool was introduced by the right hon. Member for

Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he was President of the Board of Trade, and that he set the lowest standard of wool merchandise that this country has ever known?

Mr. Brook: The hon. Gentleman is trying to impose on me a party attitude to this question. All I want to do is to state the problem of the wool textile industry at the present time. I shall not give way again to a Member who wants to make a speech as an interruption.
There has been marketed for the first time a blanket which is scarcely distinguishable from an all-wool blanket, and yet the entire warp consists of cotton; 'that is, 50 per cent, of the blanket is cotton; and 25 per cent, of the weft consists of artificial fibre. So only 25 per cent, of the blanket is wool.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) said that the housewife could depend upon her judgment on looking at the material when she buys it. I have here pieces of two blankets, and one of them is of the blanket I have described. I am prepared to show them to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have shown them to hon. Friends of mine. More than 75 per cent, of them, though they knew what they were looking at, guessed wrongly which had only 25 per cent, of wool.

Sir I. Fraser: I will tell the difference.

Mr. Brook: The firm that made that blanket of 25 per cent, of wool had submitted to it by a wholesale house another blanket which was cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West speaks of competition. Let him remember that there are two kinds of competition. There is competition in price as well as competition in quality. This debasement of quality is the result of trying to get a lower price, and it is that which is hamstringing the manufacturing fraternity at the present time. When my friends had this blanket at the lower price submitted to them, they examined it in their own laboratory and found that, instead of its being 25 per cent, wool, as their own blanket was. it was only 12½ per cent, of wool.
The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this is a process which must inevitably develop. It is common now not only in the blanket industry but in


the carpet industry and in other branches of the wool textile industry. The housewife is at the mercy of the manufacturers and retailers, because she is not technically competent to judge whether a blanket or any other textile article is made all of wool or not, or partly of artificial fibre.
This blanket will wash. It will wear. The only way in which the housewife can test the blanket for its main properties is by learning its quality in the preservation of warmth. She can do that only after a long period of use of the blanket. So it is useless to tell the housewife that when she goes to shop she must use her own judgment whether an article is all wool or not. Any hon. Member can have a look at these pieces of blanket. More hon. Members will guess wrong than will guess right as to which is all wool and which is not.
What we are pleading for, in part at any rate, is protection of the housewife by the Government when she goes to shop. Her own judgment cannot be allowed to be the sole factor in deciding whether she is buying an all-wool article or something consisting of only 25 per cent, of wool—or even less than that. It should not be too difficult to define the amount of wool in a simple product such as a blanket. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that it is much more difficult to define what is the wool content of other products of the woollen textile industry than it is in the case of blankets, of which I have been speaking particularly.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, when he replies to the debate, whether he has had brought to his notice the problem the industry is now facing, and which is not agitating the housewives as much as it is agitating the manufacturers. The problem which the industry now faces is the inevitable result of a debasement of quality which results from competition—but not the kind of competition to which the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West referred. This is the kind of competition which will drive down prices, and the only way in which good manufacturers can compete is by lowering their standards. That is the problem of the textile industry in the future.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I have seldom heard a more shocking speech than that of the hon. and gallant Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). He deplores our having a debate but thinks it worth while to take part in it. He says there will always be people who go astray and that we are wasting our time here if we make it more difficult for them to do so.
I should have thought that we could at any rate agree, first of all, that the great majority of traders and manufacturers in this country are honest people anxious to do a good job. We have been at pains in our Motion to make that plain. We have referred to "a minority of manufacturers and traders and we have referred to a "tendency" on the part of the minority. That being so, we must not be accused of having cried stinking fish. Everybody who has taken part in the debate has been at pains to make it plain that we are concerned to try to prevent something from happening among a minority.
After all what is our job? I submit that, regardless of party, our task in Parliament is not to assume that we can make people good or honest by Acts of Parliament but, as far as we are able, to produce such legislative or administrative arrangements as make it more likely that people will be honest, easier for them to be honest and more difficult for them to be dishonest. Neville Figgis, many years ago in one of his books, said that the task of Government was to make it easy for the perennial social instincts of mankind to work. That is something we ought all to accept. The hon. and gallant Member dismissed not only the Merchandise Marks Act but even the Food and Drugs Act, and that is something about which his party may not be at all pleased.
I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to accept the Motion. It provided a form of words behind which we might have joined so that we could have said for the House as a whole that we wanted the Merchandise Marks Act rigorously and effectively enforced and wanted to do everything we could to protect the consumer. It is useless for the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) to try to divide us by


pointing out the distinction between the speech made by my hon Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) and the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). They spoke from their own experience and in their own way, but let it be remembered that both their names are behind the Motion and let it further be remembered that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West and his hon. Friends put down their Amendment before they had heard either of the speeches, so that we must take it that they objected not to what was said but to what was on the Order Paper three days ago.

Mr. Assheton: Yes.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman said he was quite sure that the Board of Trade was willing to prosecute in any clear case. I should have thought that the cases advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South was so clear that there must be something wrong if prosecutions cannot be brought. It does not necessarily follow that what is wrong is wrong in the administrative machine; it may be something wrong in law. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, where is the trouble? Why is it that in what appear to ordinary people to be perfectly clear cases we are told time and again, "We cannot do anything about it." If it is a change of law that is needed, could we be told so?
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect when I interrupted him and he somewhat reluctantly gave way that I asked him whether the ordinary housewife in his constituency would be able to tell a good mattress from a bad one. I thought that he was a little unfair to me when he retorted that there were plenty of good shopkeepers in Blackburn. I know Blackburn just as well as he does, although for reasons which we need not go into tonight, I do not happen to have had recent experience of the shop people of Blackburn.
He was unfair to himself, because only a few minutes later he went on to say what a good thing the kite mark was. What he ought to have said to me, if I may say so respectfully to him, is that 90 per cent, of bedding now bears the kite mark and that is, as the housewife

should now know, an indication of certain standards. She may not always know that, but if she does, she will say, "Has this mattress got a kite mark?" Almost all mattresses made in this country at the present time have the kite mark.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to his own case if he says, "We merely rely upon the good shopkeeper" In all that we are doing we are trying to make it easier for the good shopkeeper, so that he will not be preyed upon by the bad shopkeeper. That is the whole point of our legislation. I am sure that it is not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of his hon. Friends, but some of the things they have said would seem to show some doubt about their enthusiasm for these things to which the Government is just as much committed as we were.

Mr. Burden: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it has already been shown from this side of the House how we stand, because it was from this side that the Amendment to the Merchandise Marks Bill came, and that has been the expression of our views on this side of the House for a considerable time.

Mr. Edwards: That is perfectly true, but it is not from this side of the House that the Amendment has come to delete the whole of our Motion and substantially to replace it by reliance upon competition.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about reliance upon competition. May I read to him a few words from a pamphlet called "Setting a Standard," issued by the British Furniture Trade Confederation. It says:
Under the economic pressure of a keen buyer's market there is a constant danger that a few people—both makers and sellers—will sacrifice even the lowest standards of materials and workmanship dictated by common sense in order to secure an immediate price advantage. From this arises the second danger, that substandard goods which do not stand up to normal use will bring censure not only on the individual manufacturer and retailer concerned, but even more damagingly on the trade and industry as a whole.
We cannot rely exclusively upon competition. We have to do our best to make it easier for the good trader and good manufacturer and as difficult as we know how for the person who is not going to play the game.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: It the right hon. Gentleman reads the Amendment, he will see that we do not rely solely upon competition. We approve of that, and we also welcome the extra protection given.

Mr. Edwards: It is true that the Amendment submitted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite refers to the Merchandise Marks Acts, but let me make it plain that the Amendment which has been tabled deletes the whole of the words which we have put down, and the effect is to put the Government in the position of saying, "We will not vote for a Motion which asks the Government to utilise and promote other measures to protect the consumers." This is where we must ask the President or the Parliamentary Secretary to make plain their position.
I would say about the furniture scheme to which I have referred that it is a great pity that some of the firms with household names in furniture-making have not so far agreed to come into the kite scheme and to have their products certified in accordance with the B.S.I. standard. It is important that the people whose goods are known throughout the world should come into the scheme. It is in their interests to do so, and if they do not, they will be making it more difficult for proper standards to prevail over the trade as a whole.
There is a world of difference between relatively unimportant items in our expenditure, which we are able to test for ourselves, and things which cost a good deal, about which nothing that we can do unless we are experts can enable us to judge. The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) and the examples given by my other hon. Friends who have spoken demonstrate that conclusively. For my part, I do not know, nor do I presume to know, the qualities of a piece of cloth merely by looking at it or feeling it. There may be people who can do that, but I am not one of them. In fact, I sometimes doubt whether anybody can do it.
We have in recent times seen the growth of the application of standards and certification to consumer goods. This was contemplated as far back as the Commonwealth Standards Conference in 1946. It was made more imperative when the Utility scheme was abandoned.

Perhaps it is dangerous to admit this, but I would admit that the Utility scheme was in a certain sense inflexible. I believe that it is possible to have quality standards of a more flexible kind and that a large amount of this can be done voluntarily.
Let me make it plain—I think I speak for all of us on this side—that if we can get something done voluntarily, we always prefer that to compulsion. We would hope to see the growth of these schemes covering whole industries and groups of products. But let me make it also plain that if that does not happen, when we have the opportunity next we will not hesitate to see that the consumer is protected by anything that we can do, either here in Parliament or through the administrative machinery of the Board of Trade.
It is no use having a kite scheme or anything of the sort unless it has backing from public opinion. The early standardisation was nearly always by technical sellers facing technical buyers. In cases like that, it is from the customer that the demand for certification most often originates, but it is not so in the case of consumers. Here is a matter in which we have to tell the consumer what it is all about.
I wonder how many people at present know what the kite mark means. We badly need a big propaganda drive so that people may know the meaning of this symbol. Who is to do it? Probably the British Standards Institution do not have the resources to do it, even if it were their job. If the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary are serious about the development of the kite mark scheme, who is to do the work of public education so that people may know what this mark means? It is important that somebody should do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Commercial television."] It is suggested that commercial television should do it. If the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that if and when there is commercial television he will use it for this purpose, at any rate that would be something. What I want to ensure is that something will go on record about how this knowledge is to be distributed to the community so that more people will know about it.
I am inclined to think that we need to go further than we have done. While


I do not myself favour an advisory service on the pattern of the American model, there is a gap in our arrangements and we need some kind of consumers' advisory service. That service could not examine everything, but particular cases could be brought to its notice and it might even be—and here I might be thinking aloud, for I am speaking for nobody but myself—that some such service could relieve the Board of Trade of this difficult business of initiating prosecutions, if we had the right kind of body. This body might both advise and deal with the prosecutions that arise under the Merchandise Marks Acts.
Some way has got to be found by which we do not leave to the trade associations or to the individual consumers the duty of carrying out those tasks. It may be that the creation of a new body which would give advice on matters referred to it specifically and charged with the duty of seeing that the Merchandise Marks Acts were enforced would be the right thing. I am most anxious that the Parliamentary Secretary should have the maximum amount of time in which to deal with the massive case presented to him by my hon. Friend, but I should like him in all sincerity to give us clear and unequivocal answers to the questions that have been put. If we cannot agree on the form of words, let us see where we disagree so that when we come to the Division lobby there will be no doubt about what we are voting for.

9.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), winding up this debate for the Opposition in his usual agreeable manner, paid a great compliment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), for his wisdom and foresight in putting this Amendment on the Paper. Anything more fantastic than there being no Amendment differing from the Motion on the Paper when it was supported by the sustained attack on the Board of Trade by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) it would be difficult to imagine. Certainly a ludicrous position would have resulted had this Amendment not been put down.
Nevertheless I agree with some of the things said by the hon. Gentleman the

Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who seconded the Motion, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West who moved the Amendment. In spite of some differences in approach between us as to the problems raised in the Motion and in the Amendment, I believe there is a considerable amount of common ground between us. We all desire that reliable goods of high quality shall be available to the public. There is no difference there. We all desire that the public shall be able to get good value and we all desire that the law designed for its protection shall be obeyed.
Let me start my remarks with a subject which is specifically mentioned in the Motion and the Amendment, the Merchandise Marks Acts. That means for present purposes mainly the 1887 Act as amended by the Act we passed last year. Under those Acts a person commits an offence if he applies a false trade description to goods or if he soils or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale goods to which a false trade description is applied. A false trade description for this purpose is one which is false or misleading in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied. The Acts do not compel the seller to apply a trade description at all, but if he does apply a trade description it must not be false or misleading.
In the debate complaint has been made not so much of the terms of the Acts, as of their alleged inadequate enforcement. That has been the complaint at Question time by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, and it has been her complaint today. I am very glad that she had ample time to develop these matters, which cannot be dealt with very satisfactorily at Question time, but I am sorry that by speaking for over an hour she excluded so many of my hon. Friends who wished to take part in the debate.
I should, like at the outset to try to correct two widespread errors: these errors are clearly commonly and genuinely held in many quarters. The first error is to suppose that it is invariably the duty of the Board of Trade to prosecute if there has been a breach of these statutes. That is not the view that


has ever been taken by Parliament. The principal Act, that of 1887, cast no such duty on the Board of Trade, but the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, laid down that the Board of Trade, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, could make regulations providing for prosecutions by the Board of Trade in cases appearing to it to affect the general interests of the country or of a section of the community, or of a trade.
The current regulations under that Act were made on 7th July, 1913, and they have been followed by all Governments, irrespective of party, ever since. What do these regulations provide? I am here summarising, because I do not wish to read the document as a whole. In effect, they say that a person who asks the Board of Trade to prosecute may be required to give a statement in writing of the nature and circumstances of the case, and then to give any further information or provide any further evidence that may be required, or to give security for costs. The Board of Trade is never required to prosecute if it thinks that there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
If the Board does not prosecute, that does not mean that others cannot do so. Many prosecutions under these Acts are conducted by trade associations and others by the Retail Trading Standards Association. I agree that that Association has performed useful work in this field.
There is nothing unusual or unique in an Act imposing criminal sanctions being mainly enforced by private bodies. The Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, is largely enforced by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, is largely enforced by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1925, is largely enforced by the Performing Rights Society. There is nothing unique or strange, therefore, in the Board of Trade not being the only or the most frequent prosecutor for offences against these Acts, and in fact it has not been the main prosecutor under any Government at any time. That is the first error which I wish the House to realise must be corrected.
The second error is the idea that goods themselves can contravene the Act. An examination or analysis of the goods may be helpful, or necessary, to establish that a trade description applied to the goods is false, but such examination can never in itself dispense with the necessity—if there is to be a prosecution—of proving every other ingredient in the offence, for example, the sale or offer for sale, or that the trade description was applied to or could be deemed to have been applied to the goods in question.
Having said that, let me deal with some specific cases put by the hon. Lady. Let me start with the case of the gauntlets. I hope the House will follow me when I give the particulars. On 2nd March the hon. Lady made these allegations in a Parliamentary Question. She asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he is aware that in recent advertisements, of which he has been informed, the Supreme Supply Company offer super quality real hide gauntlets, fur-lined throughout, of 15 inches length and with 12 inches wide gauntlets; that the gauntlets themselves are of sheepskin, are not fur-lined throughout, are not 15 inches long nor 12 inches wide; that the hide is not of super quality; that the value of the glove in no way approaches the £4 which is claimed in the advertisement; and whether he will initiate a prosecution.…
Let me inform the House what the Board of Trade did when these allegations appeared on the Order Paper. We caused a pair of these gauntlets to be purchased by someone who, in ordering them, mentioned the advertisement, which, of course, was necessary. The gloves were then examined on the recommendation of the Government chemists' office by the Principal of the Leather-sellers' College, who certified that the gloves were wholly hide, cow or horse, and heavily pigmented. The gloves were later examined by the secretary of the Association of Glove Manufacturers, who endorsed this opinion.
If hon. Members -have followed me, they will realise that, toad our expert examinations upheld what the hon. Lady said about the gauntlets, we should have had all the material for a prosecution. But 'in fact they did not. They showed that the description was not false in any material respect.
The hon. Lady asks whether we say that there would be no contravention if they were of sheepskin. Of course, we do not. But our expert evidence is that


they are not of sheepskin. The hon. Lady is absolutely entitled, if she so wishes, to say that all our experts are wrong and that she has better experts, but I think it is a little strong when she attacks the good faith of my right hon. Friend and of myself for giving answers in the House which are based on material which we have.
When on 8th April the hon. Lady asked what was the result of the investigation, my right hon. Friend said:
I have had a pair of the advertised gauntlets purchased by one of my officers and examined by experts. They were found to comply substantially with the description in the advertisement. I am advised that this description was not false or misleading in any material respect, that there is no prima facie evidence of a breach of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and that there are no grounds for instituting proceedings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1954; Vol. 526. c. 497.]
I justify every word of that answer.
The hon. Lady asked me some specific questions about the gloves. She is right in one respect; the thumb was not lined, the rest was. But these gloves were made to be used when driving a motorcycle, and I am told that that is usual and proper, and helps with the controls. Then the hon. Lady had further correspondence with me. I tried to explain to her where I thought she had gone wrong, and why we did not need the further pair of gloves which she sent us, because, in fact, whatever the examination showed, we should not have the necessary evidence. Nevertheless, as a matter of interest, I had the gloves examined and I promised the hon. Lady that I would let her know the result. I let her know the result, and she referred to it triumphantly. She seemed to think that it entirely destroyed the Board of Trade. Why, I cannot think.
The hon. Lady then proceeded to the case which we will call the case of the pillows. I explained to her that the particular case about which she was then inquiring would not justify proceedings against the company concerned, but as there is another product of this company which is under examination, and which may result in proceedings, I should prefer not to say anything more about that case tonight, for reasons which I think the House will appreciate.
The third case which the hon. Lady mentioned was that of the Masnaga bedspread. Here there is a complete

conflict as to what happened when the Board of Trade investigator went to the Retail Trading Standards Association and on that account an official of the Board of Trade has offered to see the secretary of the Association. Meanwhile, I ask the House to agree with me that it is not a crime for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or for me to believe, until we have reason to think the contrary, that our own investigator is a man of truth.
Why should it be thought that the Board of Trade is at all reluctant to prosecute in a proper case? After all, the House knows, as a result of an answer recently given by my right hon. Friend, that between 1st February and 5th April we initiated prosecutions in 95 cases. Of course there is no reluctance to prosecute, if the case is a good one, but that does not mean that there are unsupported allegations in the House of contraventions but that there are contraventions which can be proved by direct evidence in a court of law and not by hearsay.

Mr. Dodds: rose—

Mr. Strauss: I have too little time to enable me to give way. The hon. Lady took over an hour for her speech, and I am entitled to reply. If the hon. Member thinks that I have lost my temper. I at once apologise for any hastiness in that remark.

Mr. Dodds: I merely wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why he appeared to be addressing me all the time

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member is flattering himself.
The other main topic this evening has been the British Standards Institution and the voluntary standards which it is cooperating with industry in preparing. Since the war the B.S.I, has extended its activities to consumer goods. It has produced not only standards but, in many cases, certification trade marks combined with them.
The hon. Lady referred to the standard fairly recently produced for boys' wool knickers. I disagree with her view that it is not a good standard. It is the first standard of its kind, and I think it is a good one. It is quite true that it is not one which has been accompanied by the kite mark, but no undertaking


was ever given by my right hon. Friend in the speech to which so much reference has been made that every one of these standards would be accompanied by such a mark. The certification trade mark— the kite mark—is amply protected by statute, by the Trade Marks Act, 1938, and by the Merchandise Marks Acts.
The essence of the scheme is that it is voluntary. I know how much the hon. Lady and some other hon. Members opposite detest anything that is voluntary. Compulsion has an extraordinary merit in their eyes. The hon. Lady asked why we did not give this, that and the other power to the British Standards Institution. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the British Standards Institution has never asked us to do anything of the sort. When members of the B.S.I, read the hon. Lady's criticisms, I am sure that they will be much comforted by her assurance that she is their friend.
The Douglas Committee, which was set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Administration, reported in February, 1952, and said, in numerous passages which have often been quoted to the House, that 'the Utility schemes—as they developed and became increasingly flexible—no longer gave any real assurance either of quality or of value for money, except in the case of furniture. The Committee advised the Government to encourage industry to work out with the British Standards Institution certain standards.
What progress has been made? In furniture—the only sphere in which the Utility scheme was still giving any guarantee of quality—the B.S.I. has evolved a series of performance standards covering virtually all types of domestic furniture made of wood. There are five different standards, which may be known to many hon. Members. Many furniture makers, together responsible for more than half the industry's total output, are licensed by the British Standards Institution to apply the kite mark and are regularly visited by its inspectors. The shopper can ensure, by buying from a well-known reputable maker, or by buying furniture with the kite mark, that he will get sound furniture and not shoddy furniture. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough on the subject of

bedding. Very good progress has been made, and the greater part of the output of the industry now carries the mark.
Textiles have been mentioned, and I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West that we could have wished that more rapid progress had' been made; but, after all, we must not assume that, if more rapid progress has not been made, that necessarily means some villainy in the industries concerned. After all, the problem was novel and a very difficult one.
Let me give examples of the difficulties which have made progress slow. There has been a genuine fear that, if marking were used in connection with a form of standard covering some only of the properties of a cloth, it might mislead rather than inform, and certainly in the case of cotton the industry seriously underestimated the technical and commercial difficulties when they gave my right hon. Friend the assurance which he repeated to the House. Constructional standards could lead to undesirable rigidity and inhibit progress in the development of new constructions and the use of new fibres and blends.
Performance standards perhaps offer more hope, but here, too, there are serious difficulties that may affect our export trade. Let me give the example of multi-coloured prints. Not all the dyes would have the same fastness to light, and to set too high a standard might restrict unreasonably the range of colours and severely affect sales to overseas customers. Nevertheless, I agree that there is still scope for informative labelling, and the B.S.I, have been for some time conducting a comprehensive review of descriptive standards for textiles with the object of evolving such appropriate standards as will be most useful to the consumer.
For the reasons I have given, I commend the Amendment to the House. It omits the false accusations against us that we are not properly enforcing these Acts; it records what can be done by competition in a free society; and it records the advance which we made in the law, which is beyond anything done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 149: Noes, 180.

Division No 91.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C.R.
Hannan, W.
Reeves, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hargreaves, A.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Baird, J.
Hastings, S.
Rhodes, H.


Bartley, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bence, C. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Holman, P.
Ross, William


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horaee.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Beswick, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Short, E. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdingion)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Blenkinsop, A.
Irving, W. J.(Wood Green)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Blyton, W. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Bowden, H. W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Keenan, W.
Steele, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belpir)
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morperth)


Champion, A. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Chapman, W. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, Ivor Owen(Wrekin)


Chetwynd, G R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col.M
Thornton, E.


Clunie, J.
MacColl, J. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Collick, P. H.
McGovern, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Cove, W. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McLeavy, F.
Warbey, W. N.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mellish, R. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


de Freilas, Geoffrey
Messer, Sir F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Deer, G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morley, R.
Wilcock, Group Capt.C A. B


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Moyle, A.
Wilking, W. A


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Murray, J. D.
Willey, F. T.


Fienburgh, W.
Oliver, G. H
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Follick, M.
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)



Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Forman, J. C.
Padley, W. E.
Willis, E. G


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon.H.T.N.
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gibson, C. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Winterbotlom, Richard (Brightside)


Glanville, James
Pannell, Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Gordon-Walker, RI. Hon. P. C
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Price, J. T. (Westheughton)



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pryde, D. J
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Arthur Allen




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert
Erroll, F. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.(Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cole, Norman
Fletcher Cooke, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Banks, Col. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Foster, John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreocambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Black, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G
Crowdar, Sir John (Finohley)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bowen, E. R.
Crowdar, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood)
Glover, D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Braine, B. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
De la Here, Sir Rupert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Gunny
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfield)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hay, John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionet


Bullard, D. G.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Heath, Edward


Burden, F. F. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, Sir David
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hollis, M. C.
Marples, A. E.
Snadden, W. MoN.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Spearman, A. C. M


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maude, Angus
Speir, R, M.


Horobin, I. M.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Strauss Henry (Norwich S)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Neave, Airey
Stuart Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe Sir Harold


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Kerfay, Capt. H. 8.
Orr-Ewing Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Kerr, H. W.
Osborne C.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Page, R. G.
Turner H F L.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Turton, R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lindsay, Martin
Pitt Miss E. M
Vane, W. M. F.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Price. Henry (Lewishafn, W)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lookwood, Lt.-Col, J. C.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, P H B


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, M.
Ward Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robson-Brown, W.
Weflwood, W.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, GeraW (Tonbridge)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maclay, Ri. Hon. John
Roper, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul iSunderland, S.)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott, R. Donald



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Shepherd, William
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr Robert Allan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.

Resolved,
That this House while recognising the improving standard of goods now available to the public in competitive conditions welcomes the increased protection afforded to consumers by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953.

NIGERIA (MR. GRILIOPULOS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]

10.9 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I want to raise a case concerning the Mines Department of the Government of Nigeria and Mr. Basil Griliopulos, who until a few months ago, was a tin miner in that country. The history of this matter is somewhat complicated, and to develop it properly would require a great deal of time; but on an Adjournment, debate time is limited.
I must first summarise the facts of the case. Mr. Griliopulos was convicted on 14th January, 1953, on a charge of purchasing minerals, namely, tin, without a

licence; that is to say, he was charged with having bought tin from a person who was not his "tributer" He was working in Nigeria on the basis of buying tin from natives registered with him as his tributers, and was charged with buying tin from a person not so registered. He was fined £50 several other more serious charges against him were dismissed. It is right to say that Mr. Griliopulos hotly disputed the conviction from the outset, and resisted to his uttermost the charges brought against him. He appealed right up to the Privy Council before he eventually had to give up.
It is not for me, in an Adjournment debate, to suggest that the learned judge who tried the case originally, or the other judges who heard it on appeal, came to an entirely wrong decision for wrong motives, but, having considered the transcript of evidence, I have come to the personal conclusion that this was a wrong conviction. But that is not what I am bringing before the House tonight. I cannot go behind the fact that Mr. Griliopulos was convicted on this evidence, but what I do want to bring to the attention, not only of the Minister of State but other hon. Members, is the consequences which ensued for this gentleman.
Before dealing with those, however, I would point out that he had had no previous convictions of any kind. The offence consisted of the purchase of a comparatively small quantity of tin, not by Mr. Griliopulos personally, but by a young boy who had been employed by him as a clerk for only about three or four days. There was absolutely no jot or tittle of proof that the tin in question had been in any way illegally acquired, mined or stolen. I want to emphasise the fact that the offence was a comparatively minor one in degree, although in name the purchase of tin without a licence is a very serious offence. So is stealing. A person may be charged with the offence of larceny, but there is a great difference in degree between the man who steals £100,000 and the man who steals 6d.
The consequences to Mr. Griliopulos were very serious. He was fined £50 by the judge and then, by administrative action, the livelihood which he had built up in that country was taken away from him. On the advice of the Mines Department, the Governor of Nigeria forfeited no less than 40 leases and prospecting rights which this gentleman had possessed, some of which were very valuable, and he dismissed all the applications Mr. Griliopulos had registered for further leases. In addition, Mr. Griliopulos suffered the loss of plant and machinery, estimated by him as being of the value of £11,000.
This action was taken by the Governor on the advice of the Mines Department and, from all I have heard from Mr. Griliopulos and all I have read from documents he has supplied to me, there appears to have been a long history of hostility by that Department against him, going back to 1944, when he first started mining on his own. I do not propose to give the House many details of that history, because the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has them; they have been in the hands of the Colonial Office for several months. But, anybody who seriously and dispassionately considers the story will come to the conclusion that for some unknown reason the Mines Department in Nigeria "had it in" for Mr. Griliopulos and was anxious to prosecute him. I make that statement with every appreciation of the consequences that may ensue from it.
In November, 1952, when the offence was committed, there is no doubt that illegal mining of tin was going on at Langlang. No less than 20 mining camps were in the vicinity of that illegal mining, yet it is worth noting that no other miner besides Mr. Basil Griliopulos was investigated or prosecuted.
Here I turn to what, I think, is the most serious aspect of the whole of the case. It will be no surprise to my right hon. Friend, because the facts have been known in the Colonial Office for some time. One of the men who carried out the investigation was a man called Egbuonu, an African who was employed as interpreter. He swore an affidavit on 26th May, 1953, a copy of which I have here, saying that on 21st November he had gone with a Mr. Thomas, who was Senior Inspector of Mines, to see a man called Karkanji Fortlamy. He had a conversation with Karkanji, which went something like this.
According to Egbuonu, Thomas began by saying, "Do you know Mr. Griliopulos?" Karkanji said, "Yes, I know him quite well. He is a tin miner." Thomas then said, according to the affidavit, "Can you tell us anything about him?" And Karkanji asked, "In what way?" Thomas replied—and it is the interpreter speaking, be it remembered: "I understand that he buys tin from the pagans who work at the place where the illegal mining is going on. Is that so?" Karkanji replied, "I do not know"
Then comes the most serious sentence in the whole document. Thomas is alleged then by Egbuonu to have said to Karkanji, "Please tell us so, and we will give you some money." Karkanji, not unnaturally, asked, "How much?" Thomas is then alleged to have said, "I will give you £5."Then Karanji said, "Yes. He buys tin from the pagans working there." Thomas went on, "Thank you Karkanji. Here is £2. I shall give you the balance when the case against Mr. Griliopulos is over, because we are instituting a case against him."
If that affidavit is true, it raises a most serious issue of bribery in concocting the case against this man, Griliopulos. I have no means, of course, of knowing whether it is true or false, but the affidavit has been in the hands of the Colonial Office for some months and I have not yet had any kind of indication


whether the allegations are accepted as true or rejected as untrue. It is worth noting that the man Egbuonu, who swore the affidavit, with two other Inspectors of the Mines Department, were subpoenaed to give evidence at the hearing of the case against Griliopulos, but they were not called to give evidence. Shortly before the trial, I think only a day or so before, the man Egbuonu who swore the affidavit was sent on leave to his home in the bush, a long distance away from Jos where the trial took place.
These are very serious allegations that I am bound to make of Mr. Griliopulps's treatment at the hands of the Mines Department. The very serious consequences for Mr. Griliopulos and the information I have placed before the Secretary of State arouse suspicion, and I ask my right hon. Friend tonight to say that he will seriously consider the appointment of an inquiry at the earliest possible date to go into the whole conduct of this case against Mr. Griliopulos, who has not only been convicted, falsely as he believes, of an offence, and fined and punished for it by the court, but has also lost virtually the whole of his life's work in that country. I believe that, in justice and equity, this claim I make tonight for an inquiry should be granted, and I urge my right hon. Friend to agree to it.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I shall detain the House only for a moment in supporting the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend on behalf of this gentleman, Mr. Griliopulos, who is quite unknown to me. I am interested in the matter only because, as my hon. Friend knows, I take a certain amount of interest in colonial affairs, and so he asked me, as a friend, if I would look at the papers and give my unbiased view. I am not going to enlarge on what my conclusions are, beyond saying that I have studied most carefully all the documents and the transcript of the evidence at the trial to which my hon. Friend has referred.
I am bound to say that I find the whole position rather disturbing, and I earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend's plea to set up an inquiry in the interests of justice so as to make quite sure that there can be no suspicion

that the Administration has departed from the high standards which, from personal experience, I know prevail in the Colonies. I do not know Mr. Griliopulos and I have no interest whatever in the case except that of seeing that justice prevails.

10.21 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) as well as I do, I feel quite certain that he would not have brought this case before the House had he not been genuinely convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice or some maladministration which has led to hardship for the individual concerned. I can only tell him at the outset that, after the most careful study of the papers and the facts, I am entirely satisfied that neither of these things is true.
Indeed, I do not think that my hon. Friend could suggest that Mr. Griliopulos was unjustifiably convicted of this offence, for although Mr. Griliopulos sought leave to appeal against his conviction, first to the West African Court of Appeal and then to the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal decided that there was ample evidence to justify conviction and the Privy Council refused leave to appeal.
The real burden of my hon. Friend's case is, first, that it was unjust and unfair that this conviction was followed by the forfeiture of Mr. Griliopulos' leases and prospecting licences and, secondly, that certain officials in the Nigerian Mines Department had been hostile to him for a long time and were gunning for him. My hon. Friend suggests that the conviction on what he claims to be a minor charge was used as an excuse for depriving this man of his prospecting rights and leases and getting him removed from Nigeria.
As I said, I am entirely satisfied from my own examination of the case that those charges are as ill-founded as any suggestion that Mr. Griliopulos was in any sense unjustly convicted. Nor is that my view alone. The evidence in this case was most carefully and thoroughly examined, first, by the Chief Inspector of Mines in Nigeria, secondly, by the Lieutenant-Governor in the Northern


Region, thirdly by the Minister of Mines and Power in Lagos, fourthly, by the Chief Secretary of Nigeria when acting as Governor, and finally by the Governor himself, Sir John Macpherson; and they all declared without qualification that Mr. Griliopulos's licences ought to be revoked.
Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, after an equally thorough examination of the evidence and after a personal discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, decided that there were no grounds which would justify his intervention. Mr. Griliopulos and his legal advisers have throughout been given every opportunity to put their case for more lenient treatment, but they have not succeeded in convincing either the Governor or my right hon. Friend that any leniency is justified.
My hon. Friend based his case that the leases should not have been revoked on the assertion that the charge on which Mr. Griliopulos was convicted was only a minor one and that the loss of the leases was out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offence. I should like the House to be perfectly clear as to the facts. In November, 1952, the police found that extensive illegal mining of tin ore was going on from Crown land not far from two of Mr. Griliopulos's leases. On 19th November, 1952, Mr. Griliopulos and his clerk were arrested and charged, first, with receiving tin ore which they knew to be stolen; secondly, with receiving tin ore from a tributer not registered by Mr. Griliopulos; and thirdly, with purchasing tin ore without a licence.
Despite much evidence in support of the first two charges, the trial judge felt unable to convict, but both Mr. Griliopulos and his clerk were convicted separately on the third charge in January of last year. Although it may appear to the House, as it appears to my hon. Friend, that this third charge was less serious than the other two, in fact the offence was a very serious one indeed, involving, as it did, the violation of vital provisions of the machinery of control.
Here I should explain that illegal mining and trafficking in stolen ore is rife on the Jos Plateau, as I was informed when I was up there last year, and the difficulties of controlling it with scattered communities and scattered leases, can

scarcely be exaggerated. So when there is a conviction of this kind which involves these or kindred activities, it is obvious that the most exemplary punishment and action must be taken. Mr. Griliopulos was in fact fined the maximum amount of £50.
As can be well imagined, this particular case caused great interest among the mining community on the Plateau. I am told that, in view of the remarks made by the trial judge concerning Mr. Griliopulos, the average tin miner in that district found it quite impossible to understand how he was not convicted on the receiving count. Certainly had exemplary punishment not followed this conviction, the proceedings would have had the effect of encouraging those miners who deliberately purchase stolen tin, and discouraging those who take the trouble to ensure that the tin they purchase does in fact come from their own leases.
After the conviction, the Nigerian Mines Department, after due and careful consideration, recommended that all Mr. Griliopulos's leases and licences should be revoked under the Minerals Ordinance.

Mr. Hay: I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but is it not a fact that there never was any evidence of any kind given to link Mr. Griliopulos personally with the purchase of this tin? Was it not a fact that the purchase was by his clerk, a young boy who had only been there two or three days, and who bought from a man whom he had never seen before, in circumstances of the greatest confusion?

Mr. Hopkinson: The trial judge was perfectly satisfied that Mr. Griliopulos was involved in this thing and knew all about it. So, as I have said, the Mines Department recommended that these licences should be revoked.
I must make it quite clear that no legal issue is involved. Mr. Griliopulos had no legal right in this matter of the revocation of the leases and licences. Once a man has been convicted under this Ordinance, the Governor has full discretion to revoke all his leases. As I have said, the Governor only confirmed the recommendation of the Mines Department after he and many others, including, at a certain stage, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, had gone carefully into the matter and were


satisfied beyond all doubt that no grounds for leniency existed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley has- suggested that something sinister lay behind all this, that there was hostility and prejudice on the part of the Mines Department against Mr. Griliopulos. Having examined the papers, I am quite convinced that there are no grounds whatever for suggesting that officials of the Mines Department failed to act impartially in these matters relating to Mr. Griliopulos. Of course, one must face the fact that Mr. Griliopulos's relations with these officials were not good, but they were very largely of his own making. After all, dating back till as long ago as June, 1946, there had been a series of irregularities of which I have a list here, in which Mr. Griliopulos or tributers employed by him had been involved.

Mr. Hay: Would not the Minister agree that none of these details has ever been made public? None of them has ever been communicated to Mr. Griliopulos. Is not this a perfect example of the reason why an inquiry should be held so that he can have an opportunity of answering?

Mr. Hopkinson: In June, 1946, the Mines Department drew attention to an irregularity concerning the placing of beacons. Mr. Griliopulos admitted the irregularity in that case. There are half a dozen irregularities dating back to 1946. Other than putting the Mines Department and the police on their guard against Mr. Griliopulos, these instances played no part in the events which led up to the prosecution in the present case. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that Mr. Griliopulos has been victimised.
My hon. Friend made some play with the argument that a European senior inspector of mines, when investigating the case, offered a witness money in order to secure evidence against Mr. Griliopulos. I say here and now that that is perfectly true, and of course it was highly reprehensible. The officer concerned has since left Nigeria and there is not the slightest reason for suggesting that it reflects in any way on other officers in the Service or in the Mines Department or in the Administration.

Mr. H. Rhodes: How much importance was attached to Mr. Thomas's evidence at a later stage?

Mr. Hopkinson: That is the point. The evidence of the witness in question, to whom money was given, although it was undoubtedly true, was not material to the case. It was not material to the conviction. The curious feature is that Mr, Griliopulos's own counsel during the course of the trial did not cross-examine the officer who had given the money or the witness on the point, even though the witness in question had stated during the trial that he had later been offered a far larger sum of money, £25, by Mr. Griliopulos to give contrary evidence. Moreover, neither my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, nor Mr. Griliopulos's legal advisers in this country, appear to be seriously disposed to challenge the justice of the conviction itself.
I repeat that there is not the slightest evidence that the Mines Department did not show proper impartiality towards Mr. Griliopulos, and no ground whatever for suggesting that he was in any way framed. Conviction took place after a fair trial. The revocation of leases and licences was carried out in accordance with the law and after full examination by all concerned into the existence of any circumstances which might justify leniency.
I might tell the House that in fact Mr. Griliopulos commands no sympathy whatever among the Nigerian mining communities on the Plateau, who consider that the revocation was fully justified. Indeed, it is an undoubted fact that it is only by drastic action in cases such as this that it is possible to carry out this extremely difficult task of discouraging the stealing and illegal selling of tin to the detriment of honest miners, tributers and labourers. Having examined the case, as I have, and having heard what my hon. Friend has had to say this evening, I am afraid that I cannot possibly agree that there is any case for reopening the matter, or any case for an inquiry.
I should like to conclude with a reference to the suggestion that Mr. Griliopulos has suffered heavy losses as a result of this matter. Of course, he has suffered loss of good will and some loss of capital. But when my hon. Friend was invited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to


produce figures in regard to the investments made by Mr. Griliopulos in the leases, he produced figures of, I think, £27,000 as being the investment. I cannot give the exact figure, because it would not be proper for me to do so, but that is more than twice as much as the amount which Mr. Griliopulos had given in his tax return. Consequently, if the figures given by my hon. Friend are correct, Mr. Griliopulos may be open to prosecution on the grounds of tax evasion.
Furthermore, there is reason to believe that he has been earning no less than £15,000 a year from his activities there. I understand that he has transferred a very large sum of money—I have had the figure of £100,000 given to me as a possibility —

Mr. Hay: That is altogether disputed.

Mr. Hopkinson: I also believe he has bought a mansion in Avenue Foch, in Paris. This is not the case of a little man who has been victimised. It is the case of a man who has been mixed up in undesirable activities for a long time, who has been convicted, and who, properly and rightly, but after full and most careful examination by all the authorities concerned, including my right

hon. Friend, has had the licences and leases in the Jos Plateau revoked.

Mr. Hay: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I put this to him? In view of the most important information which he has given the House tonight about Thomas, who, it is now accepted, was going about trying to bribe the witness, does he not realise that one of the principal witnesses, if not the principal witness, against Griliopulos was this man Thomas? If Thomas was doing that sort of thing, although we may have information only as to one case, does it not throw the greatest doubt upon the whole of Thomas's evidence, upon which the prosecution rested? Is that not reason for a further inquiry?

Mr. Hopkinson: All I can say is that that knowledge was available to both sides at the time of the trial, but that no attempt was made by defence counsel to cross-examine either Mr. Thomas or Fortlamy on it. As far as I know, the trial judge was aware of it and took his decision with full knowledge of it.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.